Cultural Marxism: The Right Painting Themselves as Victims

[Forty Two]

Yet liberals tend to vote on the conservative side of the ledger.

Some evidence needed.

Jeezus, I already gave it! The liberals in the UK and Australia have formed coalitions with the conservatives.

This doesn't mean anything. In Parliamentary systems, different parties will often form coalitions to oppose a ruling party. Doesn't mean they've abandoned their principles and become the parties they coalesce with.

"Doesn't mean anything".. Oh really?

Neither of them are opposing a ruling party. They are in government (well, the libdems in the UK were, in the last term). And in Australia's situation, they are a permanent coalition. It's utterly nonsensical, if you believe in the purity of the liberal ideology. If you realise that liberalism is usually based in conservatism, then it's not really a surprise.

Other than the forming of Parliamentary coalitions, do you have any other evidence for this?

I mean -- define liberalism, and then show how a principled liberal is really basing their viewpoints on conservatism. Address the principles.

Prominent non-politician liberals in Australia have been members of the Liberal party (the coalition of liberals and conservatives). The best example in Australia is Tim Wilson, who is now giving up his position as the "Freedom Commissioner" to run for Liberal Party preselection in the next election.

edit: by the way, check out his photo. More evidence for my theory that liberals can't grow proper beards and really are just very large children.

Look -- in South Africa, the DA and the EFF formed a coalition. In Canada, the NDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party to oppose the Tories. That doesn't make the NDP and the Liberal Party the same thing.

You asked for evidence, I gave it.

If that's your evidence, it's painfully weak.

edit: And we need to see a photo of you. I bet you have smooth baby-like skin and wear a really nice suit, yeah?

No, but it's rather creepy of you to ask. You sound like someone who is trying to strongly imply "I know who you are..." Weird.

[Hermit]

Well, I don't know what the "Liberal Party" in Australia does or votes for. But, liberal philosophy has a specific definition, and Progressives are not that.

The Liberal Party of Australia is liberal only economically, and even then it's liberal only of sorts. Robert Menzies, its founder who finished up as our longest serving Prime Minister, became best known for two things: a thoroughly conservative view on everything social, and a concerted attempt to have the Communist Party of Australia outlawed. Under his benevolent gaze the various state, territory and Commonwealth police special branches flourished. Tasked with safeguarding the safety and freedom of Australian citizens, they spent almost all of their time spying on and creating dossiers about Labor Party politicians, union leaders, church officials, homosexuals, academics and assorted longhaired elements. By and by they were revealed to be just a waste of money and a danger to what they were supposed to protect and abolished - by state Labor governments. The work the Federal Special Branch was supposed to be doing was taken over by ASIO, a sort of equivalent of MI5 or the CIA.

From my reading and experience the situation in Australia is not exactly anomalous. Supposedly liberal parties of other nations have been active in regard to social repression, while on more than one occasion progressives have undone at least some of the damage and lessened some of dangers the so-called liberals have caused.

[Forty Two]

Well, the name of a party is not the same thing as a philosophy. For example, the Labour Party is not just about Labour, and it turned rather conservative over time. Calling something the Liberal Party in Australia doesn't mean that it's "liberal." I mean, the "Democratic" Party in the US has a primary system with superdelegates effectively resulting in an undemocratic primary system.

This kind of thing doesn't mean that a person who is "liberal" is really conservative.

[Hermit]

What I am trying to get at is that liberalism is rather a moveable feast. In theory at least, the Liberal Party is certainly more liberal in economic terms, meaning it is in favour of laissez faire capitalism, while the Labor Party prefers, or at least used to prefer taking a more controlling, progressive approach to it, but turns out to be better at safeguarding the freedom of the individual. The same thing used to apply in Germany until the SPD jumped into bed with the archly conservative CDU.

I do agree with you that the advocacy of conditional tolerance by the Frankfurt School is a danger to freedom, and that attempts by lefties to implement it at universities are a worry.

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps some definitions would help here, from Wikipedia...

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Whereas classical liberalism and European liberalism prioritise liberty, American liberalism and social liberalism stress equality.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, but several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, originating from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Realpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics.

[pErvinalia]

Some evidence needed.

Jeezus, I already gave it! The liberals in the UK and Australia have formed coalitions with the conservatives.

This doesn't mean anything. In Parliamentary systems, different parties will often form coalitions to oppose a ruling party. Doesn't mean they've abandoned their principles and become the parties they coalesce with.

"Doesn't mean anything".. Oh really?

Neither of them are opposing a ruling party. They are in government (well, the libdems in the UK were, in the last term). And in Australia's situation, they are a permanent coalition. It's utterly nonsensical, if you believe in the purity of the liberal ideology. If you realise that liberalism is usually based in conservatism, then it's not really a surprise.

Other than the forming of Parliamentary coalitions, do you have any other evidence for this?

I mean -- define liberalism, and then show how a principled liberal is really basing their viewpoints on conservatism. Address the principles.

As I said, I've done this before in other threads with you. But I think I might have to put my thinking cap on (i.e. have some valium) and write a blog post on this. When (if) I do, I'll link it on the forum.

Prominent non-politician liberals in Australia have been members of the Liberal party (the coalition of liberals and conservatives). The best example in Australia is Tim Wilson, who is now giving up his position as the "Freedom Commissioner" to run for Liberal Party preselection in the next election.

edit: by the way, check out his photo. More evidence for my theory that liberals can't grow proper beards and really are just very large children.

Look -- in South Africa, the DA and the EFF formed a coalition. In Canada, the NDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party to oppose the Tories. That doesn't make the NDP and the Liberal Party the same thing.

You asked for evidence, I gave it.

If that's your evidence, it's painfully weak.

How so? I linked to a prominent Australian liberal who was previously a member of the Liberal Party here (that is, the conservative party in Australia) and who is going to run for Liberal Party preselection for the next election. What would not "painfully weak" evidence look like?

edit: And we need to see a photo of you. I bet you have smooth baby-like skin and wear a really nice suit, yeah?

No, but it's rather creepy of you to ask. You sound like someone who is trying to strongly imply "I know who you are..." Weird.

Your humour gland is on the blink. I assume you've seen my jocular thread about what liberals and libertarians look like?

[Forty Two]

The better evidence would be the the "Australian Liberal" Party actual espouses a "liberal" platform. If they call themselves "Liberal" but are in favor of illiberal or conservative policies, then they aren't liberal. Like the British Labour Party. They started out as being, literally, a Labour party, but they became about as conservative as the Tories.

[JimC]

The better evidence would be the the "Australian Liberal" Party actual espouses a "liberal" platform. If they call themselves "Liberal" but are in favor of illiberal or conservative policies, then they aren't liberal. Like the British Labour Party. They started out as being, literally, a Labour party, but they became about as conservative as the Tories.

As I think rEv has already said, their policies are a mixture, as they have a wide range of politics within. For example, they currently will not allow their MPs a free vote in parliament on gay marriage, even though at least half their MPs are in favour. Because of complex internal deals, the conservative (generally religious) faction has prevented the party moving as a whole in a liberal direction on this issue.

[Hermit]

The Liberal Party of Australia's chief claim to be ideologically liberal is in its liberal economic policies. Freedoms, it imagines, flow from that. The Party is not the only one with that kind of attitude.

[pErvinalia]

The better evidence would be the the "Australian Liberal" Party actual espouses a "liberal" platform. If they call themselves "Liberal" but are in favor of illiberal or conservative policies, then they aren't liberal. Like the British Labour Party. They started out as being, literally, a Labour party, but they became about as conservative as the Tories.

Huh?!? That's the whole point. Actual liberals side with the conservatives in the Liberal Party. How is this in anyway unclear?

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

The better evidence would be the the "Australian Liberal" Party actual espouses a "liberal" platform. If they call themselves "Liberal" but are in favor of illiberal or conservative policies, then they aren't liberal. Like the British Labour Party. They started out as being, literally, a Labour party, but they became about as conservative as the Tories.

Huh?!? That's the whole point. Actual liberals side with the conservatives in the Liberal Party. How is this in anyway unclear?

The statement is clear, the proof is absent. "Actual liberals" - someone who says they are a member of the "Liberal Party" is not necessarily liberal. As you said, the Liberal Party in Oz has morphed into a conservative party. So someone who says they are a member of the Liberal Party may not be liberal at all.

Further, the notion that being liberal on economic policies means one is conservative is hogwash. That's a function of the confusion between "left" and "liberal." Being a leftist economically is not necessarily, and probably isn't, very liberal.

[Forty Two]

12973120_10207737918120294_1354212989675419650_o.jpg

Saying that there isn't a victim is not a claim to being the victim. We have the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, and the Minnesota Vikings, and the Boston Celtics. Nobody is claiming to be a "victim."

[pErvinalia]

FFS, you are singularly incapable of understanding even the most simplest of points. And the evidence of Tim Wilson and countless others like him. I'm only going to say this one more time - the Liberal Party is a broadchurch alliance between liberals and conservatives. This is so uncontroversial that no one, other than those who waste thousands of words trying to argue that black is white, debates this.

[pErvinalia]

Modern American Conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical Liberals and Social Conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th Century. It comprises a constellation of political ideologies including Fiscal Conservatism, free market or economic Liberalism, Social Conservatism, Libertarianism, Bio-Conservatism and Religious Conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government and states' rights. (See the section on Types of Conservatism below for more discussion of some of these terms). It is mainly represented by the U.S. Republican Party, exemplified by Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004) and George W. Bush (1946 - ), and much of the conservative attitude is focused in the nation's heartland (rural areas with low population density), as contrasted with the more Liberal cities and college towns.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ ... atism.html