Is being a liberal a bad thing in America?

[Democratic Hawk]

Whether one's a liberal, a libertarian, a populist or a conservative is pretty much fine as long as they aren't going about it in a fruit or nut fashion

I'm pretty receptive to moderates of all four colors

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

No but being at the far looney left (and right for that matter) is.

Yep

I've got to admit that fruits and nuts make me choke

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Democratic Hawk]

[The implication is that the left quit caring about national security by opposing Vietnam.

Whether the left quit caring or not isn't the point. It's the perception the left have on national security that's the problem

With the ports issue, Democrats have an opportunity to reclaim what was once their turf

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Just because some Christians are homophobic, I get slapped with a label as being racist/homophobic, too?  It's no better to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, wouldn't you agree?  And don't respond to me with, "Yes, but most Christians hate gays," etc.  Again, you're making the accusations; the burden of proof is on you, Nomo.  Show me proof. 

Bloody well said. I hate generalisations about anyone or anything. I attack fundamentalist Christians as often as I can when I find them to be either devious, nasty minded or just plain wrong. Thats what any good Christian does and I will continue to do it. But you cannot, under any circumstances claim all Christians are homophobic.

Some are, they go on and on about gays but dont give a sh*t about poverty or opression. But the majority do not hold such views. They may hear it in church, they may even think it is wrong, but they don't 'hate.' Because no Christian should ever 'hate.' And when the media, or the left, or even the right say 'Christian' whom do they mean? They mean the evangelists, in fact they usually mean Protestants. But Protestants are not the only Christians, and the public opinion of Catholics hardly even registers. At home I have found Catholics to be some of the most tolerant of homosexuality and to not blindly follow what the priest says in the pulpit or what the Pope proclaims. In fact I've met Catholic priests who have private reservations about what the diocese or the Pope proclaims! But then again i've known some very bigoted Catholics too, I've even spoken to a self confessed 'born again' Christian who believes there is nothing wrong in homosexuality what-so ever, and goes out his way to tell as many people about this as he possibly can. So again, we cannot generalise and we have all been guilty of it.

Yet far left liberals who denounce Christians as homophobic are, as J-mann says the first to shout out 'not all Muslims are terrorists.' And they are right. But they cannot condemn sweeping accusations when they make them themselves.

Bloody well said, both of you.

Ditto

[Democratic Hawk]

Why are liberals in Texas and other red states treated like Jews were in pre-war Nazi Germany.

Hey, I'm a liberal in Texas and I was actually treated with respect, even by my conservative/Republican friends. Careful when you make statements like that.

Well said. No reason why politically 'opposed' friends shouldn't treat you with respect

Dave