Is being a liberal a bad thing in America?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Liberalism is not a bad thing, "New Liberalism" is.

Exactly.  The Democratic Party's biggest mistake was in accomodating members of the counterculture of the 1960s.  The legacy of the extremes of 1960s liberalism --political correctness, affirmative action, tolerance of "alternative lifestyles", excessive gun control, and worst of all, a perception of being weak on issues of national security-- has pretty much made the term liberal a bad word in many areas.  In these places, liberals have come to be seen as atheists or hippies with no morals.   

People against the Iraq war have far more morals than those for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Liberalism is not a bad thing, "New Liberalism" is.

On balance, I think I prefer New Liberalism to Neo-Liberalism in an economic sense anyway but I agree with what Frodo says about the legacy of the 1960s counter-culture movement

I agree with Al, when he once described 1968 as the year when lunatics took over the asylum and haven't the Democratic Party paid for it, especially when it comes to presidential elections. 3 out of 10 is not good

But to here some on the left talk, you'd think all was well. I really one day must visit the White House and look favourably on the portraits of President's McGovern et al. and what they did for the middle class and hard working famlies

Dave

Bad mistake to compare the liberals of 2006 to some protestors of 1968.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bad mistake to compare the liberals of 2006 to some protestors of 1968.

BTW, I voted no. Mainstream liberalism is not a bad thing in itself (neither is mainstream conservatism) but the Michael Moore's and the Cindy al-Sheehani's do mainstream liberals no favors

In fact, I have much affection for liberals, FDR, Harry S Truman, Hubert Humphrey, Henry 'Scoop' Jackson to same but some

Dave

What about modern non-warmonger liberals?
Also, Cindy Sheehan is a bad example. Michael Moore is over-demonized.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What about modern non-warmonger liberals?

An interventionist foreign policy is every bit as compatible with liberalism as it is with neo-conservatism. Liberalism in itself by definition is a liberating ideology. Liberals should be at the vanguard of spreading democratic ideals to the oppressed and actively persuing an end to tyranny be it by diplomacy or military action

It hacks me right off - as it does my American kin - that the Democratic Party in abandoning its Trumanite defense policy - rather spinelessly -  allowed the GOP to pick up the defense and national security mantra and lo-and-behold we had Republican presidents realising Democratic presidents visions

I hope one day the Democratic Party will reclaim its 'natural' territory and do a better job of it . It could very well help them at the ballot box. Folk might be unhappy about Iraq but it don't mean that Republicans are on their way out. For those in 2004, who deemed that Iraq was their big issue broke overwhelmingly for Kerry anyway; yet for those concerned with national security voted overwhelmingly for Bush

As well as being credible on defense, Democrats need to neutralise the electoral saliency of social issues too because the GOP has manipulated those to a fine art at the ballot box. In the meantime, the little guy continues to get shafted

Dave

I'm sorry, I don't support warmongers. Iraq was no mistake, it was intentional. I'll make it clear, liberals like me don't support isolationism, but it's a heck of a lot better than our current foreign policy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm sorry, I don't support warmongers. Iraq was no mistake, it was intentional. I'll make it clear, liberals like me don't support isolationism, but it's a heck of a lot better than our current foreign policy.

Realism is probably closest to my own view, even if my rhetoric is somewhat neo-con. Nevertheless, liberalism is compatible with interventionism. That's the gist of my argument

Dave

If interventionism means World War II or humanitarian missions, yes. If inerventionism means Iraq, hell no.