Ah, thanks for giving me the heads up. I've been too busy with work lately to really browse, so be sure to email me if you've got a clip I can groove to.

And this one I think is right on.

We are in the middle of an ideological sea-change, once again. Authoritarian Leftism has pretty much collapsed. (despite Hillary's alarming resurgence! ) Communism and fascism have had their day and been crushed under their own weight. The hold outs are socialists in South America and Maoists in South Asia, but neither of these seem to be firm ideological movements so much as reactions against specific conditions.

Then, in America, we see a primary election with agendas scrambled. Many of the candidat...

Ah, thanks for giving me the heads up. I've been too busy with work lately to really browse, so be sure to email me if you've got a clip I can groove to.

And this one I think is right on.

We are in the middle of an ideological sea-change, once again. Authoritarian Leftism has pretty much collapsed. (despite Hillary's alarming resurgence! ) Communism and fascism have had their day and been crushed under their own weight. The hold outs are socialists in South America and Maoists in South Asia, but neither of these seem to be firm ideological movements so much as reactions against specific conditions.

Then, in America, we see a primary election with agendas scrambled. Many of the candidates have as much in common with their opponents as they do with their own party. This is especially true when you look at the Republican Party, where McCain, Huckabee and Ron Paul (three of the most exciting candidates) are all ideological mavericks.

It seems that there is an earthquake in American political identities, and that the dust hasn't settled yet. However, it could very well be the end of the two main parties as we know them. And thank goodness! I was getting pretty tired of these two!

But it occurs to me that the problem may well be that our society has become very reflexive with the terms liberal and conservative.

After all, what do the mean?

In one sense liberal could be used to mean generous, while conservative could be used to mean meager, as in this restaurant serves "liberal portions" while that restaurant serves "conservative portions." It is ironic that areas known for liberalism, such as France, tend to be very conservative with their portions.

Or liberal and conservative could mean an attitude towards morality, liberal being permissive, while conservative being restrictive.

Or liberal could mean aggressive while conservative means cautious.

Or liberal co...

But it occurs to me that the problem may well be that our society has become very reflexive with the terms liberal and conservative.

After all, what do the mean?

In one sense liberal could be used to mean generous, while conservative could be used to mean meager, as in this restaurant serves "liberal portions" while that restaurant serves "conservative portions." It is ironic that areas known for liberalism, such as France, tend to be very conservative with their portions.

Or liberal and conservative could mean an attitude towards morality, liberal being permissive, while conservative being restrictive.

Or liberal could mean aggressive while conservative means cautious.

Or liberal could mean modern while conservative could me traditionalist.

These are all common usages of these two words, however, it is very difficult to see how they apply to the political usages. Often they are simply ascribed as liberal = radical and conservative = reactionary. More recently, the "big government" "small government" dichotomy has come up, but really, that is, as you point out, a largely 20th century conception.

By my experience, radicals and reactionaries are both rather unsavory characters at best. And I've never seen a politician who wasn't in favor of Government Power when the chips are down. (Goes with the job, I guess.)

But if we look at these common usages it strikes me that liberal and conservative are BOTH important things. And indeed, I seldom see a person who is clearly one and not the other.

What we need is for a talk about values and ideas from our political leaders, rather than hollow catch phrases that lost their meaning long ago.

But by point of illustration, consider me, and many of the other "liberals" I know:

I will not vote for Hillary. If it comes down to that, I'll be very glad to vote for John McCain, a man who I like and respect, and even share many political ideals with.

Growing up, when my parents explained voting to me they said: you vote for the person who you think will do the best job. Parties never entered into the equation.

Granted, voting GOP would be something quite new for me, but that's democracy for you.

What this means is that we are seeing a shift in values and social demarcations. Although I wouldn't blame Darwin (I'd see him more as a symptom rather than a cause) I'll agree that the last ...

But by point of illustration, consider me, and many of the other "liberals" I know:

I will not vote for Hillary. If it comes down to that, I'll be very glad to vote for John McCain, a man who I like and respect, and even share many political ideals with.

Growing up, when my parents explained voting to me they said: you vote for the person who you think will do the best job. Parties never entered into the equation.

Granted, voting GOP would be something quite new for me, but that's democracy for you.

What this means is that we are seeing a shift in values and social demarcations. Although I wouldn't blame Darwin (I'd see him more as a symptom rather than a cause) I'll agree that the last 100 years have easily been dominated by materialism. Concerns over the material well being of people being advanced ahead of the intangible ideals that originally dominated political thinking.

The resultant political dichotomy was one based on ideas of concentrating wealth with the rich versus distributing it to the people. (Note, that this is not related to Capitalism per se, which I would argue is not fundamentally a materialist ideology.)

However, now the dichotomy is shifting, and we are emphasizing the intangibles again. Thus the opposition is authoritarianism versus libertarianism. We see this struggle playing out in both American parties right now.

The result is that, although I would love socialized Medicare, and I'm going to guess you would not, that is no longer the primary concern in my choosing who to vote for. I am more concerned about who has the most authoritarian ambitions.

Thus, for perhaps the first time in recorded history, there is a very good chance that you and I will vote for the same person in November.

We are in the middle of an ideological sea-change, once again. Authoritarian Leftism has pretty much collapsed. (despite Hillary's alarming resurgence! ) Communism and fascism have had their day and been crushed under their own weight.

Leftist Authoritarianism collapsed? We are practically begging for it. Not only on a national level but an international level as well. Regarding communism and fascism having their day, exactly how? I see that the same as saying any ideology has had it's day. Aren’t ideologies just simply repackaged. Do they ever really disappear? Certainly they are not dominant but there is a wave of authoritarian thinking coinciding with a materialist resu...

We are in the middle of an ideological sea-change, once again. Authoritarian Leftism has pretty much collapsed. (despite Hillary's alarming resurgence! ) Communism and fascism have had their day and been crushed under their own weight.

Leftist Authoritarianism collapsed? We are practically begging for it. Not only on a national level but an international level as well. Regarding communism and fascism having their day, exactly how? I see that the same as saying any ideology has had it's day. Aren’t ideologies just simply repackaged. Do they ever really disappear? Certainly they are not dominant but there is a wave of authoritarian thinking coinciding with a materialist resurgence. Human nature can lead us to dark places and I prefer our society be in a mode of unwavering vigilance.
Hillary calls herself a Progressive to avoid the liberal label. What is wrong with being called a Liberal? Nevertheless, I'm glad she sloughed off this label because her new one, "progressive", is certainly more accurate.

It seems that there is an earthquake in American political identities, and that the dust hasn't settled yet. However, it could very well be the end of the two main parties as we know them. And thank goodness! I was getting pretty tired of these two!

Well it wouldn’t be the first time. However, what we have is more like two antagonistic wings of the same party. Their power is increased by our division and our division is perpetuated by useful idiots. Nothing will ever be solved. Don’t misunderstand, I personally am not willing to compromise on every issue. There are some that are pure drivel in my view - like Global Warming. You want to fix global warming, then let’s not put t...

It seems that there is an earthquake in American political identities, and that the dust hasn't settled yet. However, it could very well be the end of the two main parties as we know them. And thank goodness! I was getting pretty tired of these two!

Well it wouldn’t be the first time. However, what we have is more like two antagonistic wings of the same party. Their power is increased by our division and our division is perpetuated by useful idiots. Nothing will ever be solved. Don’t misunderstand, I personally am not willing to compromise on every issue. There are some that are pure drivel in my view - like Global Warming. You want to fix global warming, then let’s not put the cart before the horse. Let’s hear and see the science that supports global warming because if you are going to intellectually honest you will have to say that the case has not been made. In fact, the case is being dismantled relentlessly. But even on global warming I could make some concession if all the answers weren’t so entrenched in a biased, partisan (socialism), and insincere scheme that is at this very moment proving itself ineffective in Europe, while the US under capitalist mechanisms is making much better progress at reducing emissions.

What we need is for a talk about values and ideas from our political leaders

This has to begin with everyday people engaging in these issues. We are intentionally divided by the parties in a way true Liberalism and Conservatism would both find unappealing. Instead of values we talk about issues such as global warming and each side has their feet in cement about the issue. You’ll see people argue the virtues of alternative fuels and ridding ourselves of the dependence on foreign oil without even the slightest regard for how to do it right. It is as if progress on the issue is not desired only division. We are Nation of useful idiots. How will it be that political leaders discuss values and ideas when the people are be

How will it be that political leaders discuss values and ideas when the people are bent on destroying themselves

I'll agree that the last 100 years have easily been dominated by materialism.

And what we have today is a very strong nostalgia for that paradigm.

However, now the dichotomy is shifting, and we are emphasizing the intangibles again. Thus the opposition is authoritarianism versus libertarianism. We see this struggle playing out in both American parties right now.

That’s insightful, Ouyangwulong. Seems a simple observation but I didn’t look at it that way. I have to agree almost 100 percent.

Darwin (I'd see him more as a symptom rather than ...

read more»

How will it be that political leaders discuss values and ideas when the people are bent on destroying themselves

I'll agree that the last 100 years have easily been dominated by materialism.

And what we have today is a very strong nostalgia for that paradigm.

However, now the dichotomy is shifting, and we are emphasizing the intangibles again. Thus the opposition is authoritarianism versus libertarianism. We see this struggle playing out in both American parties right now.

That’s insightful, Ouyangwulong. Seems a simple observation but I didn’t look at it that way. I have to agree almost 100 percent.

Darwin (I'd see him more as a symptom rather than a cause)

I do not follow. The growth of Materialism is fully reliant on the idea that Darwin replaced God with Natural means. Thus the relationship and cause of ALL things is “materialistically” determined disregarding morality ( ex: eugenics, abortion, equality, communism, genocide, class warfare, intentional stratification, sociology, etc…). However, let me be clear... I do not fault Darwin. His is a perfectly understandable theory. Though falwed in my view and he, himself, would probably reject his theory given his own admission of what he thought would destroy his theory, namely the idea of an organ that could not come into existence through numerous modifications. We have this in irreducible complexity. But I digress.