Scarborough uncritically cited National Journal label of Obama as having "most liberal record in the Senate"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough stated that Sen. Barack Obama has "the most liberal record in the Senate, according to the National Journal," but he did not mention a respected, comprehensive vote study that found Obama was the 10th most liberal senator in 2007.
During the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough stated, "[H]ow ironic it is that people see him [Sen. Barack Obama] as the uniter, despite the fact that he's got the most liberal record in the Senate, according to the National Journal." However, Scarborough did not note that, in contrast with the results of a respected vote study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, which considers every non-unanimous vote cast by every legislator to determine his or her relative ideology, the National Journal's selection of votes is subjective. The Journal used only "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." After considering every vote, Poole and Lewis' study placed Obama in a tie for 10th most liberal senator in 2007.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, here, and here), among the votes Obama cast that purportedly earned him the Journal's "most liberal senator" label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage. Obama himself, when asked by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the Journal's 2007 vote ratings during a February 11 Politico/WJLA interview, criticized the Journal's methodology by noting that it considered "liberal" his vote for "an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress."
Media Matters has also noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication's previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the "most liberal senator" in 2003.
From the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Think how ironic it is that people see him [Obama] as the uniter, despite the fact that he's got the most liberal record in the Senate, according to the National Journal. And also, he voted against John Roberts for the United States Supreme Court. Now, listen, the guy was so qualified. Anybody that saw John Roberts testify knew that if you voted against John Roberts, it's because you were a left-wing ideologue.
He fails to note the study that I did that shows Joe Scarborough as the stupidest person ever hired to replace a hack DJ who was fired for dissing a women's basketball team...
:-)
But but...he's the most liberal...And an elitist, hummis-eating, volvo-driving, Banana Republic-wearing, solar power-using terrorist sympathizer who will surrender our sovereignty to Mexico (oops, wrong person) and kill all our leaders and convert us to Islam (oh wait, I think that went a little differently when Ann Coulter said it.)
Or not, but I SECRETLY believe that, so you can't prove me wrong!
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Mary,
I applaud your pride in wearing the liberal label, too bad more namby pamby liberals who run from the word don't share your feeling.........they want no part of it, even MMFA doesn't like it.
I am a bit on the namby pamby side though.
SOLON:
"Atavistic" is a genetic throwback, a reverting to primitive structure. It suitably describes all Rightwingers and all Republicans, so you shouldn't have any difficulty working it into every political discussion you might have. My dictionary even features a picture of Rove and Bush as illustration!
I have no problem with being called a liberal, Tommy, because that's what I've been since the time I was helping my mother distribute literature for JFK in 1960, when I was seven years old.
Let me put it to you this way, Tommy. I grew up in a very Republican part of NJ - it was so Republican, in fact, that when my family moved there in 1953 and my mother registered to vote as a Democrat, the local Board of Elections called her and BEGGED her to work at the polling place because they could never get enough Democrats.
I also remember helping my mom work the Democratic Party's booth every summer at the Country Fair. I especially remember one evening in 1964, when a bunch of guys from the John Birch Society stopped by to cause trouble. But my mom and the other Democrats in the booth that night made mincemeat out of their arguments and they slinked away a while later.
Most of the kids I went through school with just blindly followed the GOP because their parents did. My mom and dad taught me to read the papers, learn about the issues, and make up my own mind. Which I always have - I've just found that over the years I'm more comfortable with the Democrat's philosophy of "let's work together to make this country better" than I am with the Republican's philosophy of "every man for himself - sink or swim".
I understand, we all get heated, it goes with the passion we feel for things, and the territory, I am as guilty as anyone here.
Take care of that back!
WZ,
I'm very sorry to hear of your infirmities. I enjoy discussing issues with you. Don't get too nice. :-) I hope your aches and pains are minimal. My best to you and your family.
Thanks, AA.
The two herniated discs in my lower back (the result of a clown ramming the back of my pickup at more than 100 MPH when I was doing 55) make it hard for me to walk long dstances, which is why I qualified for a handicapped placard for my car.
The two in my neck (the result of a "T-bone" collision caused by an idiot making a U-turn right in front of me without looking or signaling) and the nerve damage in my arms cause my hand to fall asleep several times a day without warning. It makes it very hard to drive long distances, and results in many of the typos you see in my posts. (The software I use in my job as a technical writer has SpellCheck, which I rely on very heavily. The fact that MMFA offers neither spellcheck nor editing capabilities ins painfully obvious at times when you read my posts).
I'm trying to rein in the insults and stick to the issues. Thnasks to everyone for your understanding.
WZ,
Thank you for sharing your experiences and glad you are still able to function with those injuries. I enjoy your posts. We all do typos so I never noticed that you had more or less than anyone else.
WZ,
Thank you for sharing your experiences and glad you are still able to function with those injuries. I enjoy your posts. We all do typos so I never noticed that you had more or less than anyone else.
Thanks, Mary. Others may not notice the typos, but I sure do...
WZ, what town do you live in? I want to stay away from there. And when you really hurt, go after Tommy. It always makes for an enjoyable read.
Keep fighting!!!!
WZ, what town do you live in? I want to stay away from there. And when you really hurt, go after Tommy. It always makes for an enjoyable read.
Keep fighting!!!!
When I had those three accidents, I was living in Colorado. The worst accident happened on I-25 in Colorado Springs, just north of the junction with the US24 bypass. That's the one where I was doing 55 and a guy in a Pontiac Sunfire hit my Isuzu pickup with so much force that it pushed the back bumper in flush with the frame and forced my head back through the back window of the cab. (The cops said he was doing at least 100 MPH.). I also wound up with two herniated discs in my lumbar area.
The second accident was a low-speed crash (under 5 MPH). I was stopped at a red light waiting for the left turn signal when a guy in a Grand Am pushed my Suzuki Swift into the LeSabre in front of me - it re-aggravated everythig that was injured in the previous accident.
The third accident happened outside Pueblo, CO. I was on a two-lane road when the guy in front of me pulled over onto the shoulder. As I got closer, he did a U-turn right in front of me!! I tried to avoid him, but wind up T-boning him. The impact gave me two herniated discs in my neck. And because I saw the accident coming and tensed up, I jammed both arms against the steering wheel. leaving me with carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists and cubital tunnel syndrome in both elbows.
These accidents happened in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Fortunately, I've been accident-free since then......
WZ:
The way I see it, "our" MEDIA is permeated with Rightwingers who "set the standards" for political discourse. The Swift Boat Vets got enormous coverage, and almost exclusively uncritical. The "press" relentlessly promoted "scandals" against the Clinton Administration, all of which was Rightwing invented and without merit, yet it led the headlines and commentator's focus for eight solid years. Hannity almost single handedly promoted the Rev. Wright "scandal of association," which is now the number one political story across the Media.
On any given day, we will hear the "opinions" of Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Pat and Bay Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and Brent Bozelle. Then there are copious daily doses on the radio of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, and Bortz. There are thousands more in local markets, "offset" by a small handful of "Liberals", mostly where Air America has forced a toehold (fighting Rightwing corporate market ownership/monopoly every step of the way).
Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, and Matthews typify our "choices" among television personalities, and they are joined in their blatant promotion of the Rightwing agenda by the likes of Russert, Gibson (Charlie and John), and Blitzer (documented here on this site. Most recently, Stephanopolous opted to be Hannity's butt-boy in the Democratic Debate, with Gibson challenging the Democratic candidates based on Rightwing economic MYTHS).
So, considering the virtual monopoly the Rightwing has purchased of every aspect of our "Media" ... newspapers included ... no matter how forceful or harsh you believe you may have argued your point, there is an avalanche of examples of Rightwingers who have been much more harsh, and with coverage which spans the nation daily.
TOMMY has expressed his opinion that Liberals ought to be polite and civil, which to me is tantamount to Syria telling Israel they ought not be so angry and warlike, and should just get rid of all their weapons.
The Rightwing in America believe, with great justification, that they don't stand a political chance unless they CONTROL all media, the better to control all government. We live their virtual propaganda monopoly every day, bombarded with Rightwing Republican talking points and endless "roundtable discussions" featuring lockstep "opinions" which bolster Republican goals while attempting to destroy Democrats (you can't even find anyone from NPR who will effectively defend Democrats).
Despite all that, Republicans are facing a grim upcoming election. Why? Because Republicans do not govern to make America better; they govern to promote American aristocracy. And when Republicans get their way with policy, it damages average citizens across the board, to the extent that no amount of propaganda can prompt people to disregard their own eyes, ears, and daily experience that they are much worse off in every way as a result of Republicans in power.
I credit the internet for underscoring and reinforcing what people know to be true, and which Republicans work hard to downplay. Our foreign policy is a disaster, our economy is a disaster, public policy has come to disadvantage workers and people in need (whose numbers Republican rule swells), heaping advantage only on the wealthy and powerful. Ah, but TOMMY wants Liberals to be "nice", practicing unilateral disarmament.
Keep speaking your mind, WZ, and if you're angry, you have every right to be. After all, our nation is being systematically DESTROYED by Republicans, and it must END.
Tex -
I remember when I was a kid, there was a great amount of civility between Democrats and Republicans. My mom was active in the Democratic Party, yet she had many friends who were equally active for the Republicans. When I used to help her work the party booth at the County Fair, the republican booth was a few booths away and everyone was very friendly - it was more like two different social clubs.
That civility seemed to evaporate around the time Spiro Agnew started saying nasty things about liberals in general and Democrats in particular during the 1968 campaign. And it seemed to get worse during the Reagan and Poppy Bush Misadministrations. Now, I don't think that civility will ever return...
Tex,
I applaud you for your efforts and your part in elevating the civility in political discourse, it has not gone unnoticed. Now if everyone would follow your path of open and honest discussion, without inflammatory lies and mischaracterizations, can you imagine the progess we could all make in this country?
I am glad you love your country and put it above silly, partisan childish hatred. You deserve a bow.
Great post/Tommy.
TOMMY:
Lest anyone believe you're serious, you should inform them of your sarcasm.
I pursue, and you regularly note, a very harsh accounting of Republicans in power. There is nothing "civil" about a war started to promote corporate interests, killing 4000 brave Americans so far, and making us LESS safe. There's nothing "polite" about the DESTRUCTION that was sought against the Dixie Chicks. There was nothing "friendly" about the constant dogging of Bill Clinton, culminating with a bogus impeachment attempt, which was doomed to FAIL, but which damaged this nation greatly.
The Rightwing are ALL ABOUT partisan attacks, personal scandals, and character assassination. They HAVE to be; their POLICIES are HORRIBLE for America, so they seek to win by emotional distractions. All the people I mentioned above, and many more, are employed solely to promote and echo rightwing talking points and to elevate attacks on Democrats to nationwide importance (while minimizing or ignoring similar issues when it comes to the Republicans).
It's clear, and it's blatant. I note it regularly, and add WHY I believe Republican rule is destructive to America. I cannot forgive those on the Right who have exploited negative campaigning and yellow journalism in order to saddle us with disastrous "leadership" like Bush and Cheney.
Currently, the Media is working hard to turn the tide towards McCain because ... because Obama's minister has said some provocative things? Such guilt by association is being taken seriously, because the MEDIA is united in telling us it is important and grave, and then they poll to see if their propaganda is working. Meanwhile, the very little we hear about the association McCain has with Hagee, or Keating, is in the form of excusing it away. Our media tells us what is important, and what is not. Any small issue that might harm a Democrat is important.
Think about it. The Swift Boat guys had one goal: to destroy Kerry's chances at winning (Kerry, a decorated war vet and hero). The MEDIA gave them wall to wall coverage, to "tell their story" with no fact-check. Dan Rather DARES to look into Bush's service record, and what was the focus THERE? It was Rather, of course, who should be FIRED for daring to question Bush's military record. Swift Boat guys; lionized and believed. Rather; vilified and destroyed. The only difference in the stories? One was against a Democrat, the other against a Republican. This is the work "our media" does constantly.
And I detest them for it, and I make it no secret. And I detest the GOP policy makers who result from this propaganda barrage.
If we were talking about what color to paint the office, we could disagree amicably. But Rightwing policy is destructive and deadly. Tens of thousands are affected every day, killed, maimed, impoverished, neglected. Such serious results of policy YOU SUPPORT does not merit the civility of tea and crumpets. It's deadly serious, as are the tactics the Rightwing has so far found successful. They need to be opposed with EQUAL vehemence.
Sarcasm? How can anyone possibly infer that?, especially after your second post that continues to drip with an uplifting and positive, "we-will-work-together" message that would Barack Obama proudly smile.
Carry on my good man, your inspirational words move us to all to a higher place, doing good things, being better people.
Another great post/Tommy
I was only 11 but remember the election like it was yesterday, both JFK and Tricky Dick came to my neighborhood and spoke. Everyone went to see them. Everyone seemed to be involved.
It might have been the fact that it was a predominately Irish Catholic section of the city. But it was a tough, working class neighborhood.
Unless they are on some Playstation game on a computer, can you imagine that happening nowadays?
How far adrift we have gone..........
I even got to shake hands with Nixon.
Not that I'm proud of that.
MICK:
The spanked monkey called: He takes offense at being compared to Nixon.
I even got to shake hands with Nixon.
Not that I'm proud of that.
I can better that one.
In 1969, Nixon came to Morristown, NJ with William Cahill, who was running for governor at the time. I was one of huindreds who gathered at the local Unitarian Church and them marched to the hotel where he was to speak, carrying candles. As the motorcade approached, I broke away from the crowd and ran to a spot where I could get a better view of Nixon.
I was standing there alone on one side of the street as the open-top limo showed up, with Nixon and Cahill standing up in the back. They both waved at me. I gave them both the finger. They immediately turned and started waving at the prople on the other side of the street.
For years afterwards, my late mother was convinced that the FBI had a file on me because I gave Nixon the "bird". :-)
Worrier,
I remember the debates on TV and my father rooting for Nixon. I think my mother liked JFK. Going to a Catholic elementary school the nuns and students, (mostly German-Irish and Mexican American) were overwhelmingly in favor of JFK. I was young, but it seemed like discussing whether you liked Fords or Chevys. Everyone seemed to have an opinion, but for us kids when it was over, it was over. I remember thinking JFK and Jackie were very cool. We were let out of school the day JFK was shot and I went home and cried. I think rabbit ear TV's were used in the classrooms for the first time as we watched the news and listened to Uncle Walter all day the day of the funeral.
We were let out of school the day JFK was shot and I went home and cried. I think rabbit ear TV's were used in the classrooms for the first time as we watched the news and listened to Uncle Walter all day the day of the funeral.
That's one of those days that's permanently etched in the memories of everyone old enough to remember it. I was in 5th Grade, and my class and two others were all crammed into one classroom watching a movie that afternoon when all of a sudden the movie stopped, the lights came on, and all three teachers were standing at the front of the room. They told us all to go back to our regular classrooms as quickly as we could.
When we got back to my classroom, my teacher (Mrs. Doswell) told us that JFK had been shot. A few minutes later, the principal's voice came over the PA to tell us that JFK had died, and that classes would be dismissed as soon as they could get the buses there. Everyone in my class just sat there in numb silence...
I remember spending the next few days parked in front of the TV. But we didn't hear anything from Uncle Walter, AA. My dad worked for RCA and we had the first RCA color TV on the block, so we were watching NBC and getting our info from Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.
On Sunday morning, we still had the TV on as we got ready to go to church. As we were heading out the door, my older sister went to turn off the TV - as she was walking over to it, we watched in horror as Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on live TV, knowing that the secret of why he did it was dying with him.
PS - if any of you are ever in the Dallas area, make a point of visiting the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository Building. I've been there twice - once with my wife, and once with my grown children when they were here in TX for a visit. Well worth the price of admission. Here's a link to the museum's web site: http://www.jfk.org/
This is called "living history" and why remembering is so important to a nation. I grew up in a Republican household and my parents didn't like Kennedy very much. In fact, we had an albumn that made gentle fun of them with actors mimicing Kennedy's speech and someone doing Jackie.
It was never played after the assassination. I was in my 8th grade science classroom and someone (a classmate) said he'd heard that Kennedy had been shot. Someone made a joke which I found very disturbing. Later the teacher announced that he'd been shot, but I don't remember whether school let out then or not. It wasn't until I got home that we learned that he had died. We watched most of the coverage, including the funeral, which was so moving and dramatic.
On the 22nd of November, we were in this history class when they announced that the president had been assassinated. No one could believe that this could have happened in America. This day and the weeks that followed became our history lesson for the remainder of the year.
And to bring the story full circle, before the decade was over, many of us, not only knew where this country was, but had traveled there at the "request" of our government.
In fact, we had an albumn that made gentle fun of them with actors mimicing Kennedy's speech and someone doing Jackie.
That was probably "The First Family", with Vaughan Meader doing JFK. It was one of the fastest-selling albums in 1962. He also did a sequal album - "The First Family, Volume II". Vaughan Meader's career was ruined after Nov. 22, 1963...
(BTW, I own both of these albums. I found them in a second-hand shop in Morristown, NJ in the Early '70s.)
Hi Tommy,
I have no problem with the label "liberaL", but I think he is far from the most liberal member of the Senate and Scar, et al, are using this "rating" to turn off independents and moderates. It would be akin to saying McCain is the "most conservative" Senator. I know more than a few conservatives who would be ticked if that was what the media chose to label McCain. Obama is simply not the most liberal Senator.
Let me just say that Obama's honest liberalism is far more attractive to me than phony conservatism, as recently illustrated by many big spending, big government "cons".
At least with Obama the debate can be honest and upfront, I don't believe I will be duped.
Tommy,
That is my hope as well. Obama, to me, comes across as more thoughtful than most.
Fried,
He does to me too. It is only when I have a chance to go back and see what he actually said that questions for me arise. Having seen some of his associations, alarms go off. I think he is very cagey. His reactions to Rev. Wright show me he is a typical, albeit extraordinary, politician. Even though I disagree with him and his progressive stance on practically every issue, I like him personally and his gentlemanly manner.
Whatever the criteria used, and I am not sure which methodology is more reflective of where a politician falls, I think Obama is very far to the left.
AA,
Have you researched McCain's associations yet?
Fried,
The only one I have looked into, and then only cursory, is the Keating 5. I've seen how the prosecutor said McCain said something like McCain should not have been included in the investigation, (but maybe I am wrong on that.)
Other than that, no I have not.
I am not a McCain fan politically speaking at all, even though I truly respect and admire his sacrifice he made during the Vietnam War. I consider him a true American hero.
AA,
If you are going to be as cynical as you are with Obama, you need to do the same with McCain. Its interesting that your analysis of McCain's character stops with him being a war hero. How would you feel about a guy who fought for this country when this country treated him as less than human? This man gave up his student deferment to fight for a country that wouldn't even let him stay in the same hotels, eat in the same restaurants, or go to the same schools as white people. I know you know who I am talking about, and in your eyes, the last 40 years have changed your perception of him. You owe it to yourself to investigate McCain. He has changed a ton, especially in the past 8 years.
AA,
Have you researched McCain's associations yet?
I just did a Google search on ["John McCain" scandal] and found this little gem...
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/john-mccains-other-scandal-its-actually.html
wz,
Thanks for the link. I took a look. We've debated this issue here at MMFA. I don't think it raises to the level of a scandal or questionable associations.
We've debated this issue here at MMFA. I don't think it raises to the level of a scandal or questionable associations.
But it might rise to the level of questionable activities.
WZ,
Just think if the Dems ran a candidate who met his current wife while having an affair with his former one. What if this same candidate changed his mind on immigration, missed 71% of the war votes, lied about his rationale for voting against the Bush tax cuts, had the head of his Florida campaign arrested for soliciting a sexual act, saw the head of his Arizona campaign indicted, went after the endorsement of a minister who is an anti-Catholic and linked Hitler to Catholicism, had a "slave sale" fundraiser, made a joke likening dobermanns and terrorists to women during PMS, or another who advocated the destruction of the world's largest religion. What if that candidate took 11 years to get his MLK Holiday vote right? What if he was close with Richard Quinn a leading neo-confederate:
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccains-south-carolina.html
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php
What if the Democratic candidate said the war in Iraq was for oil like McCain did today? What if the Dem candidate's team had as many lobbyists as McCain's does? Think of it.....
His reactions to Rev. Wright show me he is a typical, albeit extraordinary, politician.
If Obama was a "typical" politician he would have thrown Rev. Wright under the bus when clips of his sermon first appeared on Hannity. He had a friendship with Rev. Wright and out of respect and understanding he tried to give Rev. Wright the benefit of the doubt. Rev. Wright disrespected Obama during his performance at the Press Club, so Obama and his wife ended their relationship with Rev. Wright.
Not so. They just want accuracy. Obama was the tenth most liberal senator in 2007. No shame in that nor does MMFA claim or imply there shouild be.
But Scarborough. What a narcissistic punk. Calling Obama a left wing ideologue for voting against the corporate lackey, John Roberts.
"And also, he voted against John Roberts for the United States Supreme Court. Now, listen, the guy was so qualified. Anybody that saw John Roberts testify knew that if you voted against John Roberts, it's because you were a left-wing ideologue."
Please, don't make me laugh, Joe. Roberts is a corporatist shill in scholarly robes.
TOMMY,
Well.... then you can add me to that list of those of us that wear the label of 'liberal' as a badge of honor!
I have yet to back down from my political leanings and prove it every day when I walk up to complete strangers, sometimes guys twice my size, and engage them in political talk..... not having a clue where they stand on issues..... so far I suppose I've been lucky not to run into a hardcore Bush supporter......
Or perhaps I have and they only act tough at home or behind others, like their hero George and in reality are just big wusses?
The right-wing has for decades tried to bloody the word liberal..... knowing that corporate money is involved.... I can see why some in the Democratic leadership back away and I don't!
Clowns like Beck, O'Reilly and Limbaugh seem to think that rich Dems are the only liberals around........ don't think so!
Mary -
here's a great quote i came across a while back from Winston Churchill. It's great for those times when people on the right want to lump us liberals in with the socialists, as if they're the same thing:
Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims.
Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.
Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right.
Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.
Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass.
Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man.
Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.
These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don't think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play - a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play - in relation to men and States. - Winston Churchill, 1908
The introduction to Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman explains the differences between 19th century Liberals and 20th century Liberals.
I'm sure that can be arranged based upon your political leanings.
SOLON:
If you don't like Liberals being DEFINED by Friedman, how about by Jonah Goldberg? LOL
JG,
It would be interesting to see what Friedman wrote. If you have a link, that would be great.
However you don't have to take Friedman's word for the differences between classic liberalism and the liberalism/progressive ideology of today. I remember seeing a rather detailed explanation in Wikopedia a few days ago. So the word 'liberal' has many meanings. (I'm sure the same can be said of conservatives.)
Most conservatives i know consider themselves classic liberals.
I've tried like heck to find it online but have been unsuccessful thus far. Here goes for reading from his book... pardon any typos.
"It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, 'As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label' (Joseph Schumpter, History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the Continent of Europe. As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwors became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The ninteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought.
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentienth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government. Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism." Milton Friedman
JG......
Milton Friedman?? Are you fricken kidding me!
Next you'll claim that Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand are the only ones known for truth, justice, and economic equality!
What does economic equality mean?
I was raised in a 'democrat' household. The Trinity was: Father, Son, and FDR. I've always been a liberal. I have not voted for a Democrat since 1973, when the Democratic party opted out of liberalism and for fascist eugenics (abortion). I'm far more liberal than Harry Truman was, but Joe Lieberman is far more liberal than I am, and he is not welcome in the present Democratic party either.
The Democratic party has changed radically since the days of JFK (he ran with a promise to reduce taxes and stand firm against Communism). The Democratic party has completely lost its mind recently (proof: Howard Dean).
It's too bad. The country was richer when we had two viable parties. The Democrats can't even manage to choose a candidate, how can they expect the American people to trust them to run the country?
He won the election in large part because the GOP kneecapped their own candidate and pushed Republicans to vote for Bush's pal Lieberman.
POV,
I would analogize it to Romney running for Senator in '06, losing in the Republican primaries as anti-war candidate, promising to help the Republicans win in '08 and actively campaigning for Obama (or whomever you see as the nominee) now.
Lieberman is actively campaigning for a candidate who shares little to nothing with the Democratic Party (McCain). That is why, I believe, he has worn out his welcome.
Fried
Is it just the war issue or more than that. It seems there are 2 dem audiences at work......the party big wigs, and the voters of the state.
POV,
This article explains the 2006 election in Connecticut pretty well and can explain things better than I can:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/19/125312/831
It seems there are 2 dem audiences at work......the party big wigs, and the voters of the state.
There are three audiences in Lieberman's case - party bigwigs, the voters, and Joe himself. Joe does whatever he pleases (and/or whatever benefits him personally), and to hell with the Democratic party of the people of Connecticut.
That's all I said.
He did go on to win the general election. But the Connecticut Republicans were encouraged to vote for Joe and against the party's own candidate, Alan Schlesinger.
worrierking
I was not in any way attacking what you said. I really just want to understand it. It seems to me that JL really only differed with the dem party on the war issue. I am having a hard time understanding how the parties choice for VP just a couple years before became so hated.
If i remember right, it seems a lot of the high dem party people were out to get JL over that issue, and he would have never lost the primary if not for that. So JL took it to the people and said you decide.
I am having a hard time understanding how the parties choice for VP just a couple years before became so hated.
He disagrees with the party on probably the most important issue facing us today. And even more contemptuous, he uses republican talking points on the issue of Iraq and he goes out of his way to bash Dems for their position. There are a number of Dems who disagree with the majority on Iraq but they would never go out and bash a fellow Dem.
You are very liberal but not a Democrat. Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself?
Solon,
Interesting philosophy. Would you stand against the strong even if the strong were on the side of what is right or do you side with the weak on every issue even if they may be wrong?
What about people's property rights? Do you believe people have no property rights?
I'm just casually curious. If you have other things to do, don't worry about a reply.
get back to their roots the John Danforth, Barry Goldwater roots -solon
amen
i don't agree with anything else in your comment, btw
I wish we could comment on the anniversary of Bush's aircraft carrier stunt, and all the media types who swooned over it like loony sheep.
Enjoyed Media Matters' retrospective of some of the looniest remarks.
Mary and Fried
Yes, of course you can Mary.....you know I am on the loony radical right, and Fried.......just having a little fun. You did post a good article and thanks for that. Like I said, just having a little fun, and I miss Solon, have to keep in practice for him and all.
POV,
I thought you were above dialogue like that. No one here wants the President or the country to fail. We just want him to live up to his words. I posted a great article up a few about Liebermann and who helped him get elected (Rove, White House etc.). What I want is that all those who are for the war to really do something to help. Whether its enlisting to give those troops a break so they don't have to keep going over and over while none of us back home sacrifice one iota, or voting for those who will pass a GI Bill worthy of their service, or increase their health benefits. Personally, I know that I am going to have to pay for this war for the rest of my life and I don't want the next generation to have to. I really wish we would pay for this war as we go, but that doesn't seem to be the plan.
Fried
While I can not enlist, you are right on the GI bill and the benefits. They need to be greatly improved. And as a recent report on Fort Bragg showed, conditions need to be improved all around on the bases as well.
Sacrifice in all its forms should be honored. I think the philosophy that values sacrifice should be broadened to include every American for their sacrifice on behalf of the common good.
POV,
This is off-topic, but since you are so concerned about Reverend Wright's "racism," I thought you might enjoy reading about John Hagee's "slave sale" fundraiser:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/mccain-supporter-planned-to-hold-slave.html
POV,
I thought you were above dialogue like that. No one here wants the President or the country to fail. We just want him to live up to his words. I posted a great article up a few about Liebermann and who helped him get elected (Rove, White House etc.). What I want is that all those who are for the war to really do something to help. Whether its enlisting to give those troops a break so they don't have to keep going over and over while none of us back home sacrifice one iota, or voting for those who will pass a GI Bill worthy of their service, or increase their health benefits. Personally, I know that I am going to have to pay for this war for the rest of my life and I don't want the next generation to have to. I really wish we would pay for this war as we go, but that doesn't seem to be the plan.
The GOP certainly has lost its way, but it wasn't Danforth & Goldwater who were the guiding lights of the GOP's resurgence, it was Reagan and Newt who put together a coalition of fiscal, cultural and foreign policy conservatives.
Those conservatives were (and are) liberal in the classical sense; they believed that liberty, property and a free market were essential components of a just society. (Reagan said it best when he said that government was the problem.) Modern 'Progressives' are merely socialists; social justice (as they define it), not liberty, is the highest good (equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity).
If one can conclude anything from the 'study' that MMFA cited in their critique, is it that there is not a classical liberal among the Democrats in the Senate or the House.
The United States were founded as a liberal experiment. The current batch of Democrats (Obama & HRC included) would put that experiment on the trash heap of history if they could. The vision of the Left looks more like Cuba than Florida.
Having lived through much of the era of legislative Democratic dominance (1954-'94) I find the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP maddening. But anyone who thinks that the Democrats would be fiscally responsible are historically naive. Clinton was forced by a GOP Congress to show some sense, but HRC has shown none as a Senator, nor is there any evidence that Obama would. Bigger government is their program.
There it is. Your tell. The socialism card.
I don't care what you want to redefine Reagan and Newt, their fundamentalist view of markets has been utterly disasterous for our general welfare.
Reagan was wrong.
Government has a vital role to play in enabling prosperity. How do we prosper when our children are ingesting lead tainted toys from China because our government relaxed safety standards for imports? How do we prosper when rules and laws prohibiting predatory lending practices are chainsawed to death by the laissez faire capitalists? How do we prosper when our tax dollars pay to clean up the messes left behind by industrial polluters?
Hell, industry should pay us for crappin' up our air and water, not the other way around. But that, according to your corporatist dogma, is socialism isn't it? Sad really that you can't argue the merits of conservative economics without resorting to the socialism tripe.
No, dude. Government has a right and proper role to fulfill on behalf of the greater good.
Yeah sure and modern conservatives are merely Facists and Nazis and you are a moron and you keep pulling all this stupidity out of your ass and you will end up with colon cancer.
Solon;
Go play with the children, will you? Name calling is not debate. It's just juvenile.
If Reagan was correct about government, why did he want to govern?
Because he know there were enough people out there who were stupid enough to vote for him.
yeah, he only got 49 states.
Ad Abraham Lincoln once said, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". I believe that people were fooled by the Amiable Dunce. History will show how badly he damaged our country...
Reagan was a genuis. You forget what america was like in the 70's. The gas lines, horrible inlfation and unemployment, and Soviet dominance. Reagan took care of all of that and got America back on track. He also had to clean up the mess left behind by the total failure that was the Carter adminstration. Given Carter's recent moves, I only wish Reagan was still here to clean up his mess.
Reagan was right on the economy, and right on defense. As a result, he brought millins of dems over to the right side.
And he also cut and run from Lebanon, ran up the national debt and sold arms to terrorists.
Great guy that Ronnie.
Pure delusion. Raygun was a lying moron, who just made things up and lied so much the press stopped covering it because it wasnt news anymore. Under his Central American policies more than a hundred thousand people were killed in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, he gave Rios Montt who presided over about 50,000 of those deaths a medal of freedom for being such a good butcher. The CIA was involved in perpetrating the most violent car bombing of a civilian target in the middle east in the80s carbombing a Mosque. Soviet dominance itself shows a laughable level of brainwashing. I think it took a week to burry the miscreant because they couldnt find a place where the Earth would accept his corpse and they finally had to screw the vulture into the ground.
Reagan was a genuis. You forget what america was like in the 70's. The gas lines, horrible inlfation and unemployment, and Soviet dominance. Reagan took care of all of that and got America back on track.
I would have to dispute your criticism of Carter and assertion of Reagan's "genuis" status based on the following data points (utilizing Reagan's first term for "apples to apples" comparison):
Unemployment - When Carter took office in January 1976 the unemployment rate was 7.9% after 8 years of Nixon / Ford - when he left it was down to 6.3%. By the end of Reagan's first term in January 1984, it was back up to 8%. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Personal Income - actually increased at a higher rate under Carter than under the Nixon / Ford or Reagan administrations. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=253&FirstYear=1975&LastYear=1984&Freq=Yr
Although the Sovs had a pretty good run during the Seventies under Brezhnev, by the end of the decade their economic growth had drastically slowed and they had stuck their reproductive equipment into the Afghanistan meatgrinder. We all know how that ended.
The 1979 energy crisis (a key driver of inflation) and gas lines were a logical result of the Shah's fall from power and disruption of oil production in Iran, which was subsequently offset by increased production by other OPEC members, Mexico, Nigeria etc. While Reagan admittedly did a good job of rebuilding the military and national morale after the Vietnam era, he doesn't deserve credit for any of the accomplishments you've listed above.
The single event that made me a polital animal was when the three Maryknoll Nuns and a lay churchworker were raped murdered and burried in a shallow grave. Later, apparantly in an attempt to prove there was no level of moral depravity to which they would not sink Raygun Sec of State Alexander Haig attempted to smear them saying these nuns were running guns and exchanged gunfire with the animals who had raped, murdered then burried them in a shallow grave. I have no respect whatsoever for the Raygun administration.
Fried,
Trying to stop the growth of Government is like jumping onto a runaway stagecoach and trying to stop it before it goes over the cliff. Unfortunately Bush and the Republicans in Congress betrayed that conservative principle. It in large part caused their overall defeat in '06.
If stopping the growth of government is as hard as your metaphor, AA, conservatives, by promising smaller government are inherently lying, correct? What they should say is that they want to slow the growth of government.
Let me ask you this, AA, if they all betrayed conservative principles, why did you vote for them?
Republicans claim "Government IS the Problem" ... and once they're elected, they set about proving that prospect beyond any doubt.
At least the guy went to the trouble of mentioning one of the Senator's votes, because this idiocy of condensing a Senator's voting record into a label, or ranking or rating, all the while ignoring and failing to cite even a single vote of perhaps the many, that that label or ranking is supposed to describe...
It'd like sitting down in fine restaurant, and ordering a fine meal, I'll have the broiled shrimp, a baked potato, the sweet corn, and please bring me a dish of fresh apple sauce also, if you have it, or if you don't, then a fresh apple or pear, sliced please... thanks.
And the waiter brings you a big bowl, with a yellowish tan substance in it, and tells you that he took all the particular things you wanted, and condensed them all into one indiscernable mass, for your convenience (so that you can no longer identify at all, even one of the particular items you ordered)... and your welcome.
As if we'd ever eat a good meal like that, without enjoying the particular dishes... or label or rank or rate or summarize a Senator's voting record, without citing even a single vote on any matter.
So Sen. Obama voted not to confirm Justice Roberts?
Gee I can't imagine why... I mean, he was nominated to the Court by George W. Bush, a man of renowned integrity (cough)... a man who also wanted harriet miers on the Court... I mean if Justice Roberts was placed on the Court by George W. Bush, then he must be an honest man, right?