Whe I use the word liberal this is wht I mean, especially the free speech and individual liberty bit.
from oxford english dictionary
liberal // adj. & n.
adj.
1 given freely; ample, abundant.
2 (often foll. by of) giving freely; generous, not sparing.
3 open-minded, not prejudiced.
4 not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5 for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6 a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) Polit. of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
7 Theol. regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change (liberal Protestant; liberal Judaism).
n.
1 a person of liberal views.
2 (Liberal) Polit. a supporter or member of a Liberal Party.
l
[originally = befitting a free man: Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’]
What does it mean in america? from some of the posts and news reports it seems to mean completely the opposite nowaday. it seems almost synonymous with communist which sine they are almost opposites doesn't make any sense.
What on earth does this mean?
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
What on earth does this mean?
ahh.. a great question.. sparked a memory in the old grey matter and after alittle digging around I found this. It seems to anwser your questions..
There was a time, difficult as it may be to believe, that liberal was not a pejorative term. In fact it stood for much if not all that was socially and politically admirable. That tradition lives on in the dictionary, if nowhere else.
The adjective's many definitions include: "tolerant of views differing from one's own." And: "broad-minded, specifically not orthodox." And: "favoring reform or progress ... specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive."
All right. So how did all those qualities get turned on their heads, and how did liberalism come to be just another social disease? Perhaps a ninth dictionary definition helps explain it: "Excessively free or indecorous in behavior; licentious." The dictionary calls that definition obsolete, but the dictionary speaks too soon, because that definition has been rescued from obsolescence by the Newspeak troubadours of the right who, at the same time, have consigned all the other definitions to history's dust bin.
Liberal now refers to something that is ineffectual at best, but more likely harmful to all that we ("We" being George Will, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and other voices of Republican sweet reason) hold dear.
A liberal, far from embodying all of the admirable qualities mentioned above, becomes a do-gooder bent on wasting money on people as unworthy as he is. Far from being a defender of democracy and freedom, he is an agent bent on undermining those ideals.
And because every demonology requires an archenemy, the Limbaughs et al give us Ted Kennedy, their equivalent of Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein, Enemy of the People
But fear not.. here is the new definition of Conservative...
All of this good work, of course, is being done in the name of conservatism. And how does the dictionary define conservative? Try this: "Conserving or tending to conserve; preservative." And: "Tending to preserve established traditions or institutions." And: "moderate, cautious."
Of course. What's not conservative about turning a national wildlife refuge into an oil field or national monuments into mines? What's not conservative about putting insurance companies' and HMOs' interests above those of the people they insure? And what's not conservative about lifting restrictions of air and water pollution if those restrictions inconvenience the people who have bankrolled your party into power?
And who, if not Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Frank Murkowski, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay are our true conservatives?
A cynic might suggest that the aforementioned and a score or more of their like-thinking Republican cronies would be better described as what they are: radicals. But don't hold your breath waiting for the media to make that honest distinction. They would much prefer to go on letting radical Republicans define themselves and their opponents than risk being labeled part of a liberal conspiracy.
Confused enough? If not, consider this. When Jim Jeffords "defected" (the loaded verb employed by much of the media to describe his break from the Republican Party), the same media described him as being one of a small and increasingly disenchanted band of Republican "moderates" at odds with the party's conservatives.
But wait. All of you who have been paying attention will recall that moderate and conservative are, as far as the dictionary is concerned, synonymous. That being the case, wouldn't "immoderate" be a better term than "conservative" to describe those Republicans who caused Jeffords to "defect?" It would, but would the gun-shy media dare use it?
enjoy
There was a time, difficult as it may be to believe, that liberal was not a pejorative term. In fact it stood for much if not all that was socially and politically admirable. That tradition lives on in the dictionary, if nowhere else.
The adjective's many definitions include: "tolerant of views differing from one's own." And: "broad-minded, specifically not orthodox." And: "favoring reform or progress ... specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive."
All right. So how did all those qualities get turned on their heads, and how did liberalism come to be just another social disease? Perhaps a ninth dictionary definition helps explain it: "Excessively free or indecorous in behavior; licentious." The dictionary calls that definition obsolete, but the dictionary speaks too soon, because that definition has been rescued from obsolescence by the Newspeak troubadours of the right who, at the same time, have consigned all the other definitions to history's dust bin.
Liberal now refers to something that is ineffectual at best, but more likely harmful to all that we ("We" being George Will, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and other voices of Republican sweet reason) hold dear.
A liberal, far from embodying all of the admirable qualities mentioned above, becomes a do-gooder bent on wasting money on people as unworthy as he is. Far from being a defender of democracy and freedom, he is an agent bent on undermining those ideals.
And because every demonology requires an archenemy, the Limbaughs et al give us Ted Kennedy, their equivalent of Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein, Enemy of the People
But fear not.. here is the new definition of Conservative...
All of this good work, of course, is being done in the name of conservatism. And how does the dictionary define conservative? Try this: "Conserving or tending to conserve; preservative." And: "Tending to preserve established traditions or institutions." And: "moderate, cautious."
Of course. What's not conservative about turning a national wildlife refuge into an oil field or national monuments into mines? What's not conservative about putting insurance companies' and HMOs' interests above those of the people they insure? And what's not conservative about lifting restrictions of air and water pollution if those restrictions inconvenience the people who have bankrolled your party into power?
And who, if not Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Frank Murkowski, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay are our true conservatives?
A cynic might suggest that the aforementioned and a score or more of their like-thinking Republican cronies would be better described as what they are: radicals. But don't hold your breath waiting for the media to make that honest distinction. They would much prefer to go on letting radical Republicans define themselves and their opponents than risk being labeled part of a liberal conspiracy.
Confused enough? If not, consider this. When Jim Jeffords "defected" (the loaded verb employed by much of the media to describe his break from the Republican Party), the same media described him as being one of a small and increasingly disenchanted band of Republican "moderates" at odds with the party's conservatives.
But wait. All of you who have been paying attention will recall that moderate and conservative are, as far as the dictionary is concerned, synonymous. That being the case, wouldn't "immoderate" be a better term than "conservative" to describe those Republicans who caused Jeffords to "defect?" It would, but would the gun-shy media dare use it?
enjoy
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
What on earth does this mean?
how is it defined in american english dictionaries?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What on earth does this mean?
here's the only definition that's worth bothering with in my opinion.
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-Ambrose Bierce
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-Ambrose Bierce
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
What on earth does this mean?
I find it interesting that liberals grab the dictionary to define themselves out of a corner but words like gay, straight, weed, grass or joint just mean what everyone has come to accept. It’s kind of like John Kerry quoting the Bible during elections, then treating it as an allegory the rest of the time.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
What on earth does this mean?
One of the reasons that english has become so pervasive is because it has always been so eclectic with words and the concepts they describe being absorbed freely. It is after all originally a dialect from an obscure tribe in central germany that invaded britain over a thousand tears ago (I've forgotten the exact date). It is not the same now as it was fifty years ago, all the words relating to television (part latin part greek) and computers for instance have been made up and become part of the language.
The language changes as does the meaning of words like joint, weed, gay, fag etc. This is not good or bad but it is the reason language survives. Fifty years after shekespeare wrote his plays people were already speaking differently and that's before you start going in to different dialects, like the way the english and americans are completely incapable of pronouncing words with r in them.
I was just curious as to how a word like liberal could come to mean the complete opposite in america of its original meaning especially in a country that owes so much of its origins and to liberal thinking. It's the sheer difference in meaning that gets me. When I see diatribes against liberals, especially wishy washy ones my reaction is always what's wrong with beng a liberal-someone who believes in freedom and equality, and wishy washy, some of the greatest battles and victories and the war against tyranny have been fought by liberals, wishy washy they aint. A liberal to me is someone that will stand up for free speech every time.
I suspect that the change in the meaning of the word has been as a result of a subtle campaign to denigrate those who belief in equality for all. People forget that at one time advocating universal suffrage made you a dangerous radical.
Nowadays it seems advocating employment protections laws, welfare for the poor or raising the minimum wage makes you one. (I'm not an american so I'm having a wild stab in the dark based on my impression of what some of the issues are vis-a-vis liberal conservative are so don't take the above too seriously)
You occasionally see some pundits suggesting people on welfare or the unemployed should not be allowed to vote since they don't contribute to society put the right way and people nod sagely and say that sounds reasonable let's disenfranchise some people-the long term consequences of such an attitude don't sink in. We get such arguements in the UK as well. usually dismissed out of hand.
Newspeak was a word invented by George Orwell to describe a phenomenon he was already seeing in Russia now it is in our language. Language helps you think, it can also be ised to stop the process
The language changes as does the meaning of words like joint, weed, gay, fag etc. This is not good or bad but it is the reason language survives. Fifty years after shekespeare wrote his plays people were already speaking differently and that's before you start going in to different dialects, like the way the english and americans are completely incapable of pronouncing words with r in them.
I was just curious as to how a word like liberal could come to mean the complete opposite in america of its original meaning especially in a country that owes so much of its origins and to liberal thinking. It's the sheer difference in meaning that gets me. When I see diatribes against liberals, especially wishy washy ones my reaction is always what's wrong with beng a liberal-someone who believes in freedom and equality, and wishy washy, some of the greatest battles and victories and the war against tyranny have been fought by liberals, wishy washy they aint. A liberal to me is someone that will stand up for free speech every time.
I suspect that the change in the meaning of the word has been as a result of a subtle campaign to denigrate those who belief in equality for all. People forget that at one time advocating universal suffrage made you a dangerous radical.
Nowadays it seems advocating employment protections laws, welfare for the poor or raising the minimum wage makes you one. (I'm not an american so I'm having a wild stab in the dark based on my impression of what some of the issues are vis-a-vis liberal conservative are so don't take the above too seriously)
You occasionally see some pundits suggesting people on welfare or the unemployed should not be allowed to vote since they don't contribute to society put the right way and people nod sagely and say that sounds reasonable let's disenfranchise some people-the long term consequences of such an attitude don't sink in. We get such arguements in the UK as well. usually dismissed out of hand.
Newspeak was a word invented by George Orwell to describe a phenomenon he was already seeing in Russia now it is in our language. Language helps you think, it can also be ised to stop the process
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What on earth does this mean?
gmc wrote:
I suspect that the change in the meaning of the word has been as a result of a subtle campaign to denigrate those who belief in equality for all. People forget that at one time advocating universal suffrage made you a dangerous radical.
the change in meaning comes from the american left's metamorphosis from belief in Liberty, to belief in Government.
you might wish to read this for some interesting insights into the use of words by the left:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080604.asp
Sowell is worth reading. He is a perspicacious columnist. i note that he was lumped together with other non-left writers in an earlier post. since those who aren't Left are all Wrong, and since we're All Alike, i suspect Mr. Sowell will be rejected out of hand. oh well.
I suspect that the change in the meaning of the word has been as a result of a subtle campaign to denigrate those who belief in equality for all. People forget that at one time advocating universal suffrage made you a dangerous radical.
the change in meaning comes from the american left's metamorphosis from belief in Liberty, to belief in Government.
you might wish to read this for some interesting insights into the use of words by the left:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080604.asp
Sowell is worth reading. He is a perspicacious columnist. i note that he was lumped together with other non-left writers in an earlier post. since those who aren't Left are all Wrong, and since we're All Alike, i suspect Mr. Sowell will be rejected out of hand. oh well.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
What on earth does this mean?
An epithet is only as good as the target allows it to be.
I'm on a roll with making up these broad sentences lately. Half pompous, half true...I'm enjoying it in a sick kind of way.
There is, or used to be, a deep philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. While we may all identify the same problems (health care, education, taxes) we simply take very different routes to solving those problems.
This creates a very natural chasm; we begin to oppose one another, we take things personally, we hurl names at each other. If liberal is an epithet, then so is conservative.
Ironically, both sides come from a place of patriotism and wanting things to be better for people. I think those of us who love politics just eventually outgrow the whole thing. It's beyond stupid, really.
I'm on a roll with making up these broad sentences lately. Half pompous, half true...I'm enjoying it in a sick kind of way.
There is, or used to be, a deep philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. While we may all identify the same problems (health care, education, taxes) we simply take very different routes to solving those problems.
This creates a very natural chasm; we begin to oppose one another, we take things personally, we hurl names at each other. If liberal is an epithet, then so is conservative.
Ironically, both sides come from a place of patriotism and wanting things to be better for people. I think those of us who love politics just eventually outgrow the whole thing. It's beyond stupid, really.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
What on earth does this mean?
Could one be a liberal conservative? I think so. I think of myself as liberal in the sense that I want to be progressive. I also think of myself as conservative because I think we should progress without losing the values that got us started on our journey.
Liberals seem to think that you can’t progress and hold to core values. Conservatives too often think you shouldn’t be progressive because it is inevitable that core values will be lost. I have observed them arguing each other’s cases.
It wouldn’t be near as much fun but I think we shouldn’t use labels so much. They really don’t mean anything.
Liberals seem to think that you can’t progress and hold to core values. Conservatives too often think you shouldn’t be progressive because it is inevitable that core values will be lost. I have observed them arguing each other’s cases.
It wouldn’t be near as much fun but I think we shouldn’t use labels so much. They really don’t mean anything.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
What on earth does this mean?
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | A recent angry e-mail from a reader said that certain issues should not be determined by "the dictates of the market." With a mere turn of a phrase, he had turned reality upside down.
Decisions by people free to make their mutual accommodations with other free people were called "dictates" while having third parties tell all of them what they could and couldn't do was not.
Interesting
In the UK we have socialised medicine-the NHS it's not free we pay for it through our taxes but at the point of use we don't have to pay. I have only used it once in thr lat thirty years but as I grow in to old age the chances are I will use it a lot with increasing decrepitide. You can go privately if you want but something chronic you are back on the NHS because the private companies don't want to know-its not profitable enough. There are those who complain about the waiting lists and go privately and want to opt out-but they would also expect to use the NHS if they found themselves penniless for some reason-like they have an illness their private policy wont cover them for. double standards
It is one area where most people in this country do not wish to see market forces involved and again most are incredibly hostile to the idea that anyone should get better treatment or be able to jump queues for operations simply because they can afford it, our sense of social justice in that sense is incredibly strong. Politicians ignore the sentiment at their peril. In the UK that is middle ground politics it's no longer a radical idea.
On the other hand it's up to you to be able to pay your mortgage if you're ill or if you lose your job, tough, sell the house. most people wony sympathise too much because you should have made provision. It's social democracy rather than socialism and actually a rather complex range of issues
It's bizarre watching US medical drama where inevitably somebody has no insurance and can't get treated there is a sense of disbelief that americans put up with this.
a karenina
There is, or used to be, a deep philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. While we may all identify the same problems (health care, education, taxes) we simply take very different routes to solving those problems.
This creates a very natural chasm; we begin to oppose one another, we take things personally, we hurl names at each other. If liberal is an epithet, then so is conservative.
I do occasionally watch US debate type programmes I was wattching something called the McLaughlin report where the discussion seemed to involve taking turns insulting each other and a grandstanding chairman who couldn't even remember the names of the people on his programme.
Is their no middle ground in the US? it seeems to be all one way or the other. extremes with nothing in the middle, hate/hate rather than love/hate.
from the oxford english dictionary
Tory // n. & adj.
n. (pl. -ies)
1 esp. Brit. colloq. = conservative n. 2.
2 hist. (in England) a member of the party that opposed the exclusion of James II and later supported the established religious and political order and gave rise to the Conservative Party (opp. Whig).
3 US hist. a loyal colonist during the American Revolution.
adj. colloq. = conservative adj. 3.
Decisions by people free to make their mutual accommodations with other free people were called "dictates" while having third parties tell all of them what they could and couldn't do was not.
Interesting
In the UK we have socialised medicine-the NHS it's not free we pay for it through our taxes but at the point of use we don't have to pay. I have only used it once in thr lat thirty years but as I grow in to old age the chances are I will use it a lot with increasing decrepitide. You can go privately if you want but something chronic you are back on the NHS because the private companies don't want to know-its not profitable enough. There are those who complain about the waiting lists and go privately and want to opt out-but they would also expect to use the NHS if they found themselves penniless for some reason-like they have an illness their private policy wont cover them for. double standards
It is one area where most people in this country do not wish to see market forces involved and again most are incredibly hostile to the idea that anyone should get better treatment or be able to jump queues for operations simply because they can afford it, our sense of social justice in that sense is incredibly strong. Politicians ignore the sentiment at their peril. In the UK that is middle ground politics it's no longer a radical idea.
On the other hand it's up to you to be able to pay your mortgage if you're ill or if you lose your job, tough, sell the house. most people wony sympathise too much because you should have made provision. It's social democracy rather than socialism and actually a rather complex range of issues
It's bizarre watching US medical drama where inevitably somebody has no insurance and can't get treated there is a sense of disbelief that americans put up with this.
a karenina
There is, or used to be, a deep philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. While we may all identify the same problems (health care, education, taxes) we simply take very different routes to solving those problems.
This creates a very natural chasm; we begin to oppose one another, we take things personally, we hurl names at each other. If liberal is an epithet, then so is conservative.
I do occasionally watch US debate type programmes I was wattching something called the McLaughlin report where the discussion seemed to involve taking turns insulting each other and a grandstanding chairman who couldn't even remember the names of the people on his programme.
Is their no middle ground in the US? it seeems to be all one way or the other. extremes with nothing in the middle, hate/hate rather than love/hate.
from the oxford english dictionary
Tory // n. & adj.
n. (pl. -ies)
1 esp. Brit. colloq. = conservative n. 2.
2 hist. (in England) a member of the party that opposed the exclusion of James II and later supported the established religious and political order and gave rise to the Conservative Party (opp. Whig).
3 US hist. a loyal colonist during the American Revolution.
adj. colloq. = conservative adj. 3.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What on earth does this mean?
gmc wrote: from the oxford english dictionary
Tory // n. & adj.
n. (pl. -ies)
1 esp. Brit. colloq. = conservative n. 2.
2 hist. (in England) a member of the party that opposed the exclusion of James II and later supported the established religious and political order and gave rise to the Conservative Party (opp. Whig).
3 US hist. a loyal colonist during the American Revolution.
adj. colloq. = conservative adj. 3.
smiley noted, but of course, you're mixing the current colloquial with the historical definition. a 'loyal colonist' was of course one who was loyal to the british crown, rather than loyal to the newly forming nation.
Tory // n. & adj.
n. (pl. -ies)
1 esp. Brit. colloq. = conservative n. 2.
2 hist. (in England) a member of the party that opposed the exclusion of James II and later supported the established religious and political order and gave rise to the Conservative Party (opp. Whig).
3 US hist. a loyal colonist during the American Revolution.
adj. colloq. = conservative adj. 3.
smiley noted, but of course, you're mixing the current colloquial with the historical definition. a 'loyal colonist' was of course one who was loyal to the british crown, rather than loyal to the newly forming nation.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What on earth does this mean?
gmc wrote: Is their no middle ground in the US? it seeems to be all one way or the other. extremes with nothing in the middle, hate/hate rather than love/hate.
actually, this is the funny thing about it all. if you watch our 'news media', our movies, listen to radio, read newspapers, watch regular TV, etc, you'll come to believe that the united states as a whole is completely polarized. yet the opposite is true. more than anything else, most americans are firmly planted right on the middle ground. this is evidenced by the fact, in the larger scheme of our politics, we tend to find that when the president is of one political leaning, the congress will tend to be of the opposite leaning - voters, whether consciously or not, tend to keep the government balanced against itself, which really is the best way for it to be - if there's a conservative in the white house, the congress will tend to the liberal, and vice versa. this isn't always borne out historically of course, in no small measure because congressional terms are staggered in such a way that there can't be any one, great, sweeping changing of the guard to one party inclination or the other. but as a political system, it works very, very well.
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
our tripartate political system here in the states - with congress, the president, and the supreme court - is fashioned specifically to mitigate democracy, not to foster it.
actually, this is the funny thing about it all. if you watch our 'news media', our movies, listen to radio, read newspapers, watch regular TV, etc, you'll come to believe that the united states as a whole is completely polarized. yet the opposite is true. more than anything else, most americans are firmly planted right on the middle ground. this is evidenced by the fact, in the larger scheme of our politics, we tend to find that when the president is of one political leaning, the congress will tend to be of the opposite leaning - voters, whether consciously or not, tend to keep the government balanced against itself, which really is the best way for it to be - if there's a conservative in the white house, the congress will tend to the liberal, and vice versa. this isn't always borne out historically of course, in no small measure because congressional terms are staggered in such a way that there can't be any one, great, sweeping changing of the guard to one party inclination or the other. but as a political system, it works very, very well.
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
our tripartate political system here in the states - with congress, the president, and the supreme court - is fashioned specifically to mitigate democracy, not to foster it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
What on earth does this mean?
anastrophe wrote:
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
our tripartate political system here in the states - with congress, the president, and the supreme court - is fashioned specifically to mitigate democracy, not to foster it.
May I interject and say that what you have just said needs to be repeated over and over again. We in the US live in a republic that thinks it’s a democracy. The cry for more democracy must be a very pleasing thing to the ears of those who want to see us fail.
We need to encourage our elected folks to embrace the fact that we still exist because we are a republic. If they hear it enough, maybe they will begin to vote for what is best, rather than what is popular.
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
our tripartate political system here in the states - with congress, the president, and the supreme court - is fashioned specifically to mitigate democracy, not to foster it.
May I interject and say that what you have just said needs to be repeated over and over again. We in the US live in a republic that thinks it’s a democracy. The cry for more democracy must be a very pleasing thing to the ears of those who want to see us fail.
We need to encourage our elected folks to embrace the fact that we still exist because we are a republic. If they hear it enough, maybe they will begin to vote for what is best, rather than what is popular.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
What on earth does this mean?
smiley noted, but of course, you're mixing the current colloquial with the historical definition. a 'loyal colonist' was of course one who was loyal to the british crown, rather than loyal to the newly forming nation.
That was my point just laughing at the way language changes.
democracy // n. (pl. -ies)
1 a a system of government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b a state so governed. c any organization governed on democratic principles.
2 an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.
[French démocrat
republic // n.
1 a state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president, not by a monarch etc.
2 a society with equality between its members (the literary republic).
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
Can't say I entirely agree with you but I get your point, let's not fall out over semantics.
actually, this is the funny thing about it all. if you watch our 'news media', our movies, listen to radio, read newspapers, watch regular TV, etc, you'll come to believe that the united states as a whole is completely polarized. yet the opposite is true. more than anything else, most americans are firmly planted right on the middle ground.
That's why I started this post, to try and make sense of it all. You do get, or I get rather, an image of two sides with nothing more constructive going on between them than yaboo politics and knocking political campaigns. The religious right come across as a bunch of dangerous nutters with a power way beyond their actual nember that would turn america in to a nightmare place to live in for those not of their disposition. I don't think that is an accurate picture, america is too large and diverse a population for that to make sense.
That was my point just laughing at the way language changes.
democracy // n. (pl. -ies)
1 a a system of government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b a state so governed. c any organization governed on democratic principles.
2 an egalitarian and tolerant form of society.
[French démocrat
republic // n.
1 a state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president, not by a monarch etc.
2 a society with equality between its members (the literary republic).
an aside - a very important concept is routinely trampled, misused, misapplied, and just generally misunderstood: the united states - and a great many other nations described so, are not democracies. the united states is a republic. democracies and republics are as different as night and day, yet just about any country that has a voting process is called a 'democracy'. a republic is ultimately constructed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. a democracy on the other hand, encourages the tyranny of the majority.
Can't say I entirely agree with you but I get your point, let's not fall out over semantics.
actually, this is the funny thing about it all. if you watch our 'news media', our movies, listen to radio, read newspapers, watch regular TV, etc, you'll come to believe that the united states as a whole is completely polarized. yet the opposite is true. more than anything else, most americans are firmly planted right on the middle ground.
That's why I started this post, to try and make sense of it all. You do get, or I get rather, an image of two sides with nothing more constructive going on between them than yaboo politics and knocking political campaigns. The religious right come across as a bunch of dangerous nutters with a power way beyond their actual nember that would turn america in to a nightmare place to live in for those not of their disposition. I don't think that is an accurate picture, america is too large and diverse a population for that to make sense.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
What on earth does this mean?
It's my turn to applaud Anastrophe. Well said, thank you.
I agree that the majority of Americans are not as polarized as the media would have us believe. "Two Neighbors Discuss Politics, Disagree, and Then Lend Each Other Yard Tools" does not make an exciting headline.
It was a good point in regards to the differences between our actual republic and a democracy. Many of us do use the words interchangeably.
I personally refer to democracy as the right and ability to be active in the governing of your own country by means of voting, running for office, being involved in grass roots movements, communicating with our legislators, etc.
I think that we hurl labels at each other to ignore any points made by the "opposition" - and that these labels come fast and furious immediately following a well-put thought that we don't want to deal with.
I agree that the majority of Americans are not as polarized as the media would have us believe. "Two Neighbors Discuss Politics, Disagree, and Then Lend Each Other Yard Tools" does not make an exciting headline.
It was a good point in regards to the differences between our actual republic and a democracy. Many of us do use the words interchangeably.
I personally refer to democracy as the right and ability to be active in the governing of your own country by means of voting, running for office, being involved in grass roots movements, communicating with our legislators, etc.
I think that we hurl labels at each other to ignore any points made by the "opposition" - and that these labels come fast and furious immediately following a well-put thought that we don't want to deal with.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
What on earth does this mean?
I think that we hurl labels at each other to ignore any points made by the "opposition" - and that these labels come fast and furious immediately following a well-put thought that we don't want to deal with.
That's a good way of putting it, that's what it looks like, with neither side listening to the other. Moderates tend to lose out against someone that won't compromise because they can't understand the nature of the beast and those convinced of their own rightness ride roughshod over the wishy washy ones that want to compromise treating them with contempt and go after their opponents, eventually things come to a head and conflict ensues. I don't think it's a peculiarly american thing just human nature. Our governments and society emerge to control conflict and deflect the consequences as much as anything else and wev'e moved way beyond the simple tribal conflict of the past on to something much more complex and life is interesting.
Again, speaking as an outsider it looks as if the political machine has got away from the people and too few people have any real say on what happens and while a republic designed to control the excesses of the mob is good having the power in too few hands is not necessarily a good thing. The impression I have is that the media is owned by just a few large companies that are careful not to offend those in power consequently there is little real criticism or investigation or even awareness of what is going on.
We need to encourage our elected folks to embrace the fact that we still exist because we are a republic. If they hear it enough, maybe they will begin to vote for what is best, rather than what is popular.
Now theres a thing, who decides what is best? As a freethinking libertarian don't try and tell me.
That's a good way of putting it, that's what it looks like, with neither side listening to the other. Moderates tend to lose out against someone that won't compromise because they can't understand the nature of the beast and those convinced of their own rightness ride roughshod over the wishy washy ones that want to compromise treating them with contempt and go after their opponents, eventually things come to a head and conflict ensues. I don't think it's a peculiarly american thing just human nature. Our governments and society emerge to control conflict and deflect the consequences as much as anything else and wev'e moved way beyond the simple tribal conflict of the past on to something much more complex and life is interesting.
Again, speaking as an outsider it looks as if the political machine has got away from the people and too few people have any real say on what happens and while a republic designed to control the excesses of the mob is good having the power in too few hands is not necessarily a good thing. The impression I have is that the media is owned by just a few large companies that are careful not to offend those in power consequently there is little real criticism or investigation or even awareness of what is going on.
We need to encourage our elected folks to embrace the fact that we still exist because we are a republic. If they hear it enough, maybe they will begin to vote for what is best, rather than what is popular.
Now theres a thing, who decides what is best? As a freethinking libertarian don't try and tell me.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What on earth does this mean?
gmc wrote: Again, speaking as an outsider it looks as if the political machine has got away from the people and too few people have any real say on what happenswell, that's not how it is. the real problem such as it is, is not too few people having a say, it's too few people willing to participate. our rates of voter participation are terrible. the public has become apathetic, because in the larger scheme of things, life in the U.S. has been good for so long, that most people just figure 'that's how it is', so they don't need to vote.
and while a republic designed to control the excesses of the mob is good having the power in too few hands is not necessarily a good thing. The impression I have is that the media is owned by just a few large companies that are careful not to offend those in power consequently there is little real criticism or investigation or even awareness of what is going on. well, that's a completely erroneous perception. there is no shortage of independent media, there's no shortage of criticism and investigation and awareness.
the funny thing about michael moore's 'farenheit 9/11' - while it decries all of the horrible supression of free speech etc etc, it goes on to make well more than $100 million from a free public going to theaters and watching it. lots of folks wring their hands here about all the horrible restrictions on freedom that are taking place - forgetting the fact that they are publicly decrying these things, which just doesn't happen in an 'unfree' nation.
i'm not suggesting that they are fantasizing about what they're concerned about. there are real problems, and real threats to liberty. but they/we are looking at those problems from a position of extraordinary liberty to begin with. people who speak out against our government, no matter how harshly, are not 'disappearing', never to be seen or heard from again, which is a regular occurrance in totalitarian societies. last i checked, michael moore is still stirring up the s h i t every fifteen minutes or so.
and while a republic designed to control the excesses of the mob is good having the power in too few hands is not necessarily a good thing. The impression I have is that the media is owned by just a few large companies that are careful not to offend those in power consequently there is little real criticism or investigation or even awareness of what is going on. well, that's a completely erroneous perception. there is no shortage of independent media, there's no shortage of criticism and investigation and awareness.
the funny thing about michael moore's 'farenheit 9/11' - while it decries all of the horrible supression of free speech etc etc, it goes on to make well more than $100 million from a free public going to theaters and watching it. lots of folks wring their hands here about all the horrible restrictions on freedom that are taking place - forgetting the fact that they are publicly decrying these things, which just doesn't happen in an 'unfree' nation.
i'm not suggesting that they are fantasizing about what they're concerned about. there are real problems, and real threats to liberty. but they/we are looking at those problems from a position of extraordinary liberty to begin with. people who speak out against our government, no matter how harshly, are not 'disappearing', never to be seen or heard from again, which is a regular occurrance in totalitarian societies. last i checked, michael moore is still stirring up the s h i t every fifteen minutes or so.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
What on earth does this mean?
i'm not suggesting that they are fantasizing about what they're concerned about. there are real problems, and real threats to liberty. but they/we are looking at those problems from a position of extraordinary liberty to begin with. people who speak out against our government, no matter how harshly, are not 'disappearing', never to be seen or heard from again, which is a regular occurrance in totalitarian societies. last i checked, michael moore is still stirring up the s h i t every fifteen minutes or so.
In a free society freedom can be taken away little by little as nobody notices, attitudes are subtlely changed until it becomes acceptable to pillory one or other sector in society or the consensus becomes so strong that dissenting voices become very lonely and oit get harder and harder to go back to what was once taken for granted. We have similar issues here even if we go about them in different ways, despite having a niminally socialist party we now have the most right wing home secretary we have had for decades. Religon is beginning to raise it's ugly head and stir things up and revive old antagonisms best left to die away.
We have suffered terrorists attacks for years now they are talking about making us carry ID cards as if it would major any difference to a terrorist but it does make it easier to track legitimate citizens, big corporations are managing to get legislation watered down so it is business as usual, hypocritical ain't an adequate description.
On a brighter note the EU parliament gave the EU commissioners a spanking so things are looking up. Come back Maggie I could almost forgive you.
In a free society freedom can be taken away little by little as nobody notices, attitudes are subtlely changed until it becomes acceptable to pillory one or other sector in society or the consensus becomes so strong that dissenting voices become very lonely and oit get harder and harder to go back to what was once taken for granted. We have similar issues here even if we go about them in different ways, despite having a niminally socialist party we now have the most right wing home secretary we have had for decades. Religon is beginning to raise it's ugly head and stir things up and revive old antagonisms best left to die away.
We have suffered terrorists attacks for years now they are talking about making us carry ID cards as if it would major any difference to a terrorist but it does make it easier to track legitimate citizens, big corporations are managing to get legislation watered down so it is business as usual, hypocritical ain't an adequate description.
On a brighter note the EU parliament gave the EU commissioners a spanking so things are looking up. Come back Maggie I could almost forgive you.