Are we questioning "Civil Libertarian" ideas now?

[newthinking]

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Folks,

Democrats have *never* just been about social programs and equality. Good government: things like Accountability, transparency, responsiveness, due process, have been part and parcel of liberal/progressive, and yes "Democratic Party" ideology for a long time. MLK was a heavy civil libertarian.

Totalitarian systems have social programs. The Soviet Union housed and employed their people. North Korea has social programs. Without proper safeguards, and oversight, and yes at times restrictions, in what government agencies can do, you will have a totalitarian social welfare state.

Just because "Libertarians", as in Rand Paul, happen to also believe in some ways in Civil Liberties does not mean that Democrats can not have some the same values. In fact they must. It's somewhat ignorant, frankly, to lable Progressives who are concerned civil libertarians, as "Rand Paul" libertarians.

It is good this discussion is occurring. But it is somewhat alarming that there seems to be some trying to make the point that basically the values around "Civil Liberties" only belong to Rand Paul and his ilk.

Without strong protection of Civil Liberties there is no Democratic or Just society.

(Note: All the edits were correcting Paul Ryan. I meant Rand Paul)

[Cerridwen]

1. Your other "right." n/t

[newthinking]

2. People seem to get stuck on labels. "Civil Liberties" are different than "Libertarian" ideology

"Libertarians" also believe in government without social programs.
Democrats believe Social nets are critical. But that does not mean we do not also believe (somewhat as part of the libertarian ideology) that protecting civil liberties, due process, etc, is not also essential to a Just society.

[MNBrewer]

3. There are ideals where Democrats and Libertarians can ally.

Rejecting their help on civil liberties because of their economic views is idiotic.

[sabrina 1]

21. Well, the ptbs want us to do that because if the people ever unite against the corrupt war criminals

and Wall St. criminals, they would never achieve the kind of power they have by insisting on keeping people divided. That is changing and there is nothing they can do about it now. The greed and corruption went too far.

[tex-wyo-dem]

32. +1 ! you're exactly right...

The last thing the PTB wants is for people to unite...they know if this happened, they would lose power and in a hurry.

It is highly in their best interest to keep us divided.

[Cerridwen]

4. Big "L" libertarians are authoritarian "right" wingers who like to smoke pot

and think prostitution should be legal so they can pay some woman to get their rocks off.

Small "l" libertarians want to go it on "their own" in their fantasy world of the "self-made man" and run screaming to the evil "gummit" when their house burns down.

In short, they are hypocrites and deserve any scorn they receive.

[newthinking]

9. Again, you see to be getting stuck on the word

Have you read works by Paul Lackoff? On the power of such ideology to change the common meanings of words? And how with that you actually restrict the way the mind can think?

The word "Liberty" is a good example of a word that has been heavily manipulated. I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to know when "Civil Liberties" meant something quite different than what you seem to believe it means.

Look it up in a dictionary.

[freshwest]

12. Do you see yourself among these?

[newthinking]

16. That is a framed look. Concepts are much deeper than politics

The right would love you to leave the definition of liberties to them.

Go ahead and surrender it. I won't!

[freshwest]

20. Sorry, but you already have. You're defending a brand, and saying other people are wrong.

That was also about the behaviour that is commonly exhibited by posters talking down to other posters and telling them to get some education. I don't do that.

But I do take people at their word, when they find any reason to not vote and make themselves out to be allies, which DU was created to an environment for us to meet. Those who say they won't vote or refuse to lower themselves to be a Democrat because there are things they don't like that are done in the real world, is a vote fo those who seek to steal personal freedom.

Such as the right to choose how many children a woman will birth, or where one will live, or if they will get a job. The rest is mental masturbation for those who have the luxury of such things, and many don't.

Peace Out.

P. S. I appreciate your not going into full abuse mode ir name calling which some Libertarians who don't respect the opinions of others on DU do to other posters.

[newthinking]

22. Who said I don't vote

You labled me multiple times there.

You labled my views libertarian, when they are not at all like the political frame you mention

You implied I am someone who does not vote or does not vote democratic party.

None of which are true.

I am just trying to explain how people are mistaking a set of Democratic values, with a political ideology.

I am not trying to sound condensending. But try to consider that my post is not to decieve you, but help people to understand what seems to be a huge misreading of each other on this board.

[Th1onein]

44. I understand what you are saying in your OP, newthinking, and I agree with you.

And you said it very well.

Welcome to DU.

[zeemike]

39. If you can label it you can dismiss it..

That is what it boils down to...and this is used by the right wingers all the time...and now that has come to DU I guess because it worked so well for the right wingers.
And the definition of what a true democrat is will become narrower as this process continues...and then comes the purge of the non believers, which is the end results of authoritarian rule...Stalin and Mao come to mind.

[ucrdem]

34. ^ lots of win in that one.

My strong perception is that the term "Libertarian" as currently deployed is for all intents and purposes a dog whistle in lower-my-taxes camouflage.

[newthinking]

42. Sure. And the term "liberal" used to be co-opted

Political operatives of all persuasions would love to dumb us down and abuse our language.

Just because the term is now being used by a political party that neither of us agrees with, does not mean that anyone who uses that part of the english language is suspect. Gawd! This is almost infantile...

[flamingdem]

36. +1

I need to borrow this

[freshwest]

40. Hey, don't just borrow it. Steal the best, ignore the rest!

It describes some behaviors on this board from those frantically supporting Rand and the other Libertarian gods.

I do credit to the OP for not being abusive to me as some have been, no matter how nice I've been to get them to understand why I say there are some serious things to consider that don't fit in their narrow view.

Some have definitely fit into several of those types, and they wonder why some of us might not be swayed by that treatment. Part of being a Democrat does include some of what they preach, but they don't see the big picture at all.

Check my journal for my rants on them, with sources. Of course, you will have to make your own popcorn.

[flamingdem]

41. I will. I think that I was being trolled by one this week

and that they do things like troll DU and undermine Democratic groups.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan yuk!

Will check out your journal!

[freshwest]

43. I get trolled by a Libertarian, Paulbot or Infowar mouthbreather everyday. Meh!

But I'm always kind to small children and animals. Unfortunately, if you feed them...

[reusrename]

79. Brings new meaning to the phrase "creepy ass cracker."

[Cerridwen]

13. You're arguing for the label while arguing against labels?

Uh, huh.

You grab a dictionary. Then some reading comprehension. Then take a few classes. After that, go meet some real "L"ibertarians and "l"ibertarians.

Than get back to me.

[newthinking]

17. Take a deep breath and think, not react politically, to what I am saying

this discussion is depressing.

I am talking about Liberty, and Civil liberty, as values, not being the same things as the political expression, "libertarian", as we think of it.

This is depressing. Maybe we *are* doomed if people can't get away from political frames

[Cerridwen]

18. Yes, yes, I'm being a(n) hysterical female.

I get it.

That would be the other problems I have with multi-case libertarians.....their sexism and frequent homophobia because anything "female" or "female"-like calls to question their own strength.

I have a(n) horrific habit on this board; when I realize I am having a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent or dishonest broker. I leave.

[newthinking]

19. I didn't even know you were a woman

hadn't even considered which gender you were.

(edited to add the shrug)

[Squinch]

15. You seem to be the one stuck on the words. Or yourself. Can't quite figure which it is.

[freshwest]

10. +1. They are screaming about their sacred political label while not supporting other rights. Meh.

[TalkingDog]

24. Noam Chomsky would disagree

http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/2486 Noam Chomsky: Classic Libertarian

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. From 1971 on

what happened in 1971? the US Libertarian Party was established.

What another thing about that libertarian party? It is so broad it will never become a viable second or first party. They are third.

Chomsky, and I admire him, is forgetting the other 450 years of history.

[napoleon_in_rags]

64. That thar was a dumb post.

A conservative who talks about how wonderful our voting system is, is a "democrat" (small d, advocate of democracy) but not a Democrat (Big D, political party). A liberal who believes in the sanctity of the constitution is a republican (small r, advocate of the republic as a form of govt.) but not a Republican (big R, political party). A liberal who talks about scaling back the governments involving in something - war on drugs, enforcing strait only marriage, or spying is a libertarian on those issues (small l, advocate for liberties) but not a Libertarian (Big L, political party.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. Heard 'em described as "free market Republicans with bongs."

[Warpy]

5. You can tell them apart because Republican "libertarians"

believe in their own civil liberties--but none for women. They theoretically believe in ending the drug war--but not for poor people. After all, they sneer, one has to save some people from themselves and the lazy poor won't work if they enjoy life during their off time.

Listen to them talk about that some day, it's disgusting.

Democrats are often civil libertarians, the cornerstone of which is minding one's own business instead of ending "sin" in other people that we are never tempted to commit, ourselves.

The term "libertarian" has been hopelessly sullied by that party's uncritical embrace of all Ayn Rand's ideas, something that would create hell on earth for everyone not born rich.

[newthinking]

14. Not just that, but also Democrats believe social nets are appropriate

and tend toward using progressive means to an end, aka science, rather than "what we did in the past"

Libertarians are more like Republicans than real "Civil Libertarians", in that they believe in low taxes and government only for security

[flamingdem]

37. Oh gawd the image of Paul Ryan floated back into my brain

Remember when than Randian was almost VP !!

[Honeycombe8]

6. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian. He's a Republican. Rand Paul is a Libertarian. nt

[newthinking]

11. I meant Rand Paul. Just changed it

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Time for a refresh on the Political Compass, I see.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.

[newthinking]

23. Good link

[Harmony Blue]

8. Can I say having a government that is transparent and for the people

and by the people is what democracy is all about? The reason for the Arab Spring that has taken grip in that part of the world is because of this yearning for transparency and accountability.

As a democratic republic we elect officials to represent us so we can go on with our daily tasks. We delegate our power, which in turn delegates represent our values.

[sigmasix]

25. follow the money

America's latest incarnation of the libertarian party is beholding to those that supply the money. The Koche brothers, fox "news" and other right wing reactionaries have given the libertarian party millions in donations and helped to organize the movement. The criminally wealthy are good at backing-up thier bets with fall-back positions and patsies- it just so happens that the libertarian movement was ripe for right wing manipulation and take over. The ideaology of American libertariansim is an important facet of the American ideal as a whole, but deeply unamerican when applied in isolation from the rest of America's moral knowledge and the lessons of liberty denied. This latest incarnation seems determined to accuse American progressive ideas and institutions of being racist and evil. These sweeping attacks on progressive success stories are a vital part of the right wing attack media and used as justification for further hatred of any progressive ideas, principles or people. Teabaggers have used thier partisan power to take over and destroy the libertarian movement- the sooner Americans come to terms with the death of the movement, the sooner we can all work together to rid the world of right wing America's threat to the future of the human race. Where are the true conservatives when they are needed?

[DonCoquixote]

26. Libertarians are trying to STEAL the word

hiding as true libertarians. We have every right to separate the people from the term.

[Snarkoleptic]

27. Here's a chart of the European political spectrum I often use to help

my less aware friends and acquaintances figure out who the are policically aligned with.


Those who lack introspection are then directed to to this-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

It's often an eye-opener as those who are politically unaware may tend to reflexively vote the way of their parents.

[Iliyah]

28. Liberal voices are not in

the the military radio messages.

[bluedigger]

29. No we are questioning devisiveness.

And those who seek to weaken the Democratic Party for their own purposes. It's pretty simple really.

[PatrynXX]

31. Ron Paul is a libertarian... Rand Paul is Tea Party

Rand might want to say Libertarians and Tea Party are the same thing but they aren't ie I agree more with Ron than Tea Party Rand.

[ucrdem]

33. I think it's safe to say that whenever "libertarian" creepy-crawls into the discussion

you're almost always dealing with some form of GOP propaganda and you're being played. These guys are very good at what they do. That includes the silly diagrams, Noam Chomsky, both Glenns, CNN and the many tentacles of the Texas oilocracy. JMHO, YMMV.

[flamingdem]

38. That includes posters who suggest that Democrats and Libertarians

rilly share lotsa things and can make nicey. :retch: !

[newthinking]

45. OK. I give up, that Democrats are all uniform and couln't possibly just

be actually be trying to get others to understand differences between groups that otherwise have similar values..

No... shhhhh.... if other democrats don't think like us they are suspects! They must be a xyzertarian operative behind that keyboard....

yess that's it....

ugh!

[frazzled]

35. Yes, if it includes such things as the unrestricted "liberty" to carry a gun

There are many so called "liberties"--such as the "freedom" from government regulation for businesses or industry, or "freedom" for states to institutionalize discriminatory laws against women, minorities, or LGBT people--that are anything but liberal.

Any kind of what I would call absolutist interpretations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th or any other amendment is in general not liberal, in that liberals do not believe in fundamentalist, immutable interpretations.

I do not believe, for instance, that we have absolute rights of assembly (say, to assemble at the steps of an abortion clinic, to harrass women). We must always assess individual rights against the common good, and then definition changes over time, as do interpretations of our Constitution and the rights that it guarantees.

[davidn3600]

47. There is a huge difference....

There is a huge difference between a government that supports equality and a government that is spying on it's people. One is helpful, one is abusive.

And are you telling me that I have to give up my rights to privacy and the 4th amendment and allow the NSA to record my phone calls, emails, and internet searches so the "common good" can feel safe? Fuck that! That's not the way liberty and freedom works.

Destroy the free so the oppressed can feel safe. That's how I interpret your post.

[frazzled]

81. You interpret my position wrongly

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Partially, because your description of what the NSA is doing at this time does not appear to be correct, by all accounts. So I can't respond to a premise that I don't consider fully accurate.

But mostly because my point was that people interpret civil liberties differently, usually aligned with whether they are on the right or the left. True libertarians, such as Greenwald, really don't make that distinction. Which explains, for instance, his avid support of Citizen's United, etc.

[Waiting For Everyman]

46. Very few read (or understood) the OP, apparently.

Wow, Democrats running away from civil liberties. Now I've seen everything. No wonder we have problems.

Your OP couldn't be more on target. I'm just shocked it needed saying. And clearly, saying it isn't even enough because most of this thread above is arguing the point with you. I don't even know how to react to that. The nicest way I can put it is...



Maybe we need to put together some educational videos of the 60's, and other similar eras, explaining what civil liberties MEANS. I begin to see why we never went back to pick up the ball where it was dropped after Watergate. Few even get the point of it anymore. Damn. Of all the hopeless things I've seen in the last few years, what I see in this OP strikes me as the most hopeless... especially considering this is a Democratic board. Omg, what have we come to?

Well, you can count me in as a big ole CIVIL LIBERTARIAN. Yeah, that's "shouting" it, and proud of it. I'll wear that banner any day of the week.

[newthinking]

48. Fortunately it appears to be mostly a vocal minority

on this site anyway.

[Waiting For Everyman]

49. I sure hope so.

Of course, I know that a whole lot of people don't chime in, in any given thread, so there is that too. But sometimes I have to wonder just how far down the rabbit hole we really are. Thanks for your OP, though, it's a good one.

[ucrdem]

50. We get it, and we object to it.

Specifically to the use of "Libertarian" in place of "liberty." Here's why:

Civil liberties have always been in important part of the Democratic platform, of course. Typically Democrats fights for voting rights, reproductive rights, fair labor practices, equal opportunity rights, the right to challenge police misconduct and so on.

"Libertarianism" is a whole different ball game. Whatever it might have meant elsewhere in the US it now means freedumb from affirmative action, from the IRS (tax obligations), and from regulation of business practices at all levels. That's a whole different ball game and the purview of the GOP. So obfuscating a clear distinction by using the term "libertarian" in place of "liberty" buys into a GOP linguistic ratfuck, to put it bluntly. Note that the "L" in ACLU for example stands for liberties, not libertarians.

So why even use the word? It's poisonous. Leave it to the baggers and their ilk.

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. Oh hell no.

That is the weakest, most wimpy nonsense I have heard in quite a while. Why not hand them the rest of the dictionary too? Hell, give them the word "democracy" next. All they have to do is start some stupid group, slap a name on it, and we run and hide.

Dayum.

[ucrdem]

53. It's just a word. We have better ones. Liberalism for example.

That has a long and noble Western enlightenment history. Or liberty, which occurs in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. "Libertarianism" assuredly does not. The GOP has taken ownership of it, and it means what it means. Let them have it. We don't need it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

55. The GOP doesn't own squat.

It doesn't even own the word "republican". The concept is much bigger than they are.

[ucrdem]

58. They own libertarianism because they bought it.

US "Libertarianism" is a designer brand crafted with care by GOP propagandists.

[Waiting For Everyman]

61. Oooh is it trademarked now?

"Civil libertarian" still means what it always meant. When you allow a noble concept to be made into a dirty word, you play a dangerous game. No thanks, I'll have no part of enabling that.

[ucrdem]

62. When is always? "Civil libertarian" is a neologism, and yes,

by making that linguistic substitution you're basically introducing a meaning completely different from "civil liberties."

[Waiting For Everyman]

65. Introducing a meaning?

Which meaning is it that is being "introduced"? Seems to me, it's your take on it that is new.

Rest assured, I will not be changing my opinion on this, so continuing this is a waste of time.

[ucrdem]

66. Yes. Your title could have been "Are we questioning 'Civil Liberties' now?"

Which is more concise and to-the-point word wise. To work in "libertarian" you had to add "ideas." So why go to all that trouble if you meant "civil liberties"? And why cling to a phony made-up word if you really mean "liberty?"

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. One is a noun, the other in an adjective form.

How hard is that to comprehend? (It's the same as saying "I'm a Bostonian" instead of "I'm from Boston".) When the ideological hairsplitting goes to forbidding minutiae like that, we have truly slipped over the edge of what is rational.

Plenty of self-described civil libertarians worked damn hard in the 60's, and even died in some cases, to push in Civil Rights and to end an illegal war, and I'll be damned if I'll see that term shoved into derision by people who are too lazy to defend it, without saying how screwed up that is.

Having said so, the point has been made.

[ucrdem]

69. Now you're mixing up "civil rights activists" with "civil libertarians." They aren't the same.

In fact, they're typically opposed, for example on the issue of hate speech, which civil rights activists worked to ban and civil libertarians work to un-ban in the name of free speech.

So to get back to my original point, working "libertarian" into political discourse as substitute for "liberty" is a GOP effort to promote their rancid brand. If this still isn't clear I'll try to explain further tomorrow. Good night.

[Waiting For Everyman]

71. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not mixing up a thing.

And I'm not open to being edited, or being told which words to use. Thought I made that clear.

[newthinking]

70. words in the dictionary are important

you literally cannot form ideas without them.

Please please look up "linguistics" and learn the science behind it. Here is a decent video that discusses some of it:

The reason that these words are under attack is purposefull. Why do you think that the right wing so often takes good words and uses them in incorrect ways?

We can't surrender our language. We either need to create new words or take back the ones that have been distorted. Liberty is a good word and the concept is appropriate to us. It is part of the liberal viewpoint.

[ucrdem]

73. Yes, liberty is a fine word. Libertarian is a GOP designer word.

That's my whole point. Don't use it unless you want to drag in the GOP baggage. Maybe you do, but that's another kettle of fish.

[newthinking]

74. *You* are dragging in the GOP garbage

not me. As you seem to be focused on it. My post was not about that belief system. It was about the importance of Civil Liberties to basic liberal beliefs.

Indeed it seems that some people have been trained to see the word "Libertarian" as the right wingers want it to be seen. It does indeed trigger an emotional (and irrational response in some cases like on this topic).

You *choose* to let it cause an emotional reaction even when it is obvious you are not talking to a "Rand Paul Libertarian".

I can't stand that form of politics (represented by so called "Libertarians" ot conservatives). And it is somewhat inconsiderate to attempt to bully others not to use dictionary terms because some don't like them.

So quit it.

[bananas]

72. Amazing, isn't it? nt

[newthinking]

77. Framing in action

Our reality is so politically framed people have difficulty even thinking concepts around words that have been successfully manipulated.

[Hydra]

122. I'm right there with you

The things I'm seeing here are beyond bizarre. We're now Tea Party/Libertarians and against big government because we oppose the illegal things out gov't is doing.

Apparently the law isn't supposed to matter anymore according to these talking points, and I'm sure they're coming right out of the WH.

W. T. F.

[Newest Reality]

51. Libertarians are,

in the modern, Western point of view, nothing more than economic anarchists.

If we do not call them on this and note the fact that they shy away from what underlies their agenda, then we do a disservice to both their perspective and the real value and meaning of anarchy and its vital import in these trying times we live in.

Bringing anarchy to the table as a viable response to tyranny is not only viable, it may be the most important and necessary coming to terms we have ever encountered.

[patrice]

56. What will anarchy cost you? nt

[Newest Reality]

57. Everything and nothing.

That depends on whether you are ready to go there, though.

[ucrdem]

59. Thanks, but no sale.

Politics and New Age quackery do not mix. Sorry to butt in but let's not get too far afield of the OP's question which is basically an effort to play a terminological trick on us.

[Newest Reality]

124. Assumptions and reality

mix even less.

You have seemingly made a discrimination based on very little information other than you own and I respect that and enjoy the implicit humor in it as well.

My question would be: why would "new age quackery" be relevant without inquiry more into what I said there, rather than a sudden, reactionary response that tells me, and the rest of the readers more about where your thinking and discrimination is than where I am actually at?

Really. Did you know enough about the post I made to make that gross assumption or where you wanting me to believe your beliefs about what you think you know to be true?

[patrice]

60. Must say I have some difficulty with statements about anarchy made from

a background/basic foundation that is decidedly NOT anarchic. That could be bourgeois.

[newthinking]

68. "Civil Libertarian" is not the same thing as

the people you mention that call themselves "libertarians".

You are demonstrating exactly what I was posting about. Nobody is disagreeing with the premise you mention. But that is different than "Civil" liberty.

Did you read the OP????

[patrice]

54. No matter how right they are, Civil Libertarians have no right to unilaterally evoke disaster.

They have no right to assume that what we don't know doesn't matter.

If we are to engage in risks, it must be democratically.

[LostOne4Ever]

63. Great OP!

And welcome to DU!

I agree with you entirely! Civil and left wing libertarianism is a large part of the reason I so greatly support the democratic party! Especially in today's political world its this commitment to civil liberties that best separates the democratic party from the republican party.

[newthinking]

75. I must say that this thread perfectly demonstrates the power framing has on people

Wow!

[geckosfeet]

76. I think the fear is siphoning votes away from democratic candidates during elections.

[Kolesar]

78. I am repulsed by Rand & Ryan, so reflexively am dismissive of civil liberties issues?

Wow. That's some new thinking. I have a fault I never imagined.
**
BTW, I am the one who had my civil liberties violated when the local police stopped me from organizing an antiBush rally in my rich suburb. Did you do any antiBush organizing? Would :luv: to know!!

[LWolf]

82. Thank you. nt

[LWolf]

83. I'm on the "libertarian left"

on this compass, as are most DUers, unlike the candidates they vote for. I find this one to be pretty accurate.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

You've exposed something that few want to acknowledge: Democrats react to the "L" word, "libertarian," in the same way that Republicans react to their "L" word, "liberal." Both have an emotional knee-jerk response to something they've been conditioned to hate without thinking.

While so many here on DU pat themselves on the back for thinking, using reason, etc., unlike those on the other team, in reality, when it comes to partisanship, it's a mirror image. Both sides hate each other, and that frames their reactions. On DU, it's okay to hate political opponents, to call them names, to ridicule them, etc., etc., as long as they are not Democrats. And anyone that might siphon a vote away from the worst Democrat is the enemy. Anything that might make any Democrat look bad is wrong; Democrats are not held to the same standards as other politicians.

So, when a Democrat wants to erode civil liberties, it's okay, and when a Republican wants to do so it's not. It's not about issues, it's about the party.

These days, we have been shocked and awed repeatedly by what politicians are getting away with, and the rationalizations made by them and their supporters to justify what can't be justified. While it seems bizarre, as long as DU is primarily a partisan site, you are going to see some DUers willing to toss out ANYTHING and adopt anything, to protect a Democratic Administration.

I'm a registered Democrat, but I am a libertarian leftist first. Issues are the whole point; I support the party and/or individual Democrats when they get the issues right, I don't when they don't. I don't have an emotional investment.

[newthinking]

92. Notice Ghandi is in the "libertarian Left" on the spectrum

If one gets away from the manipulation of terminology and allows deeper introspection, it just makes sense.

What is really interesting about that site. Look at the analysis of where different governments and leaders are. It really shows there has been a worldwide drift to authoritarianism in recent years.

[ucrdem]

97. Which tells us how meaningless these diagrams really are. nt

[newthinking]

103. Of course, because it does not fit your ideology.

Would you like to offer an alternative? One that is actually based on the science of social theory like this one?

You might read the FAQ on the exact objection you raised.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq17

You also might want to check the "professional feedback" page and note all the people with actual field credentials who believe this is a very effective tool.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/profeedback

[ucrdem]

107. I've seen it, and my assessment is: Libertarian lolipop for lost tots.

Meaningless i-propaganda for the unwary, with lots of oppo research on Dems, rather casually sourced, with not-exactly-inconspicuous peddling of the Libertarian brand. Didn't take long to figure out either. And "Pace News LTD" has no connection to Pace University I might add.

[LWolf]

98. It does.

It also makes clear the separation between mainstream Democratic politicians and their voters.

[woo me with science]

84. This is the level of contempt authoritarians have for the people.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:28 PM - Edit history (2)

They assume that we are so unfathomably stupid that we will confuse "libertarianism" with "civil liberties" and mindlessly fall in line to cheer the destruction of our Constitutional protections.

This is how craven and manipulative these authoritarians really are. This is how insulting, dishonest, and despicable their propaganda machine is. This the utter contempt with which they view Americans. And this is how blithely they assault the very foundations of our Constitution.

If anyone had any doubts how dangerous these plutocrats who have captured our government and our media really are, the Orwellian propaganda onslaught of the past few weeks should remove all doubt.

[LuvNewcastle]

85. Excellent OP

I don't think you could have written about the subject in a more clear or concise manner. Too bad some of the responses are so bent on clouding the issue. Civil liberties are just as important now as they've ever been. It's sad to see so many so-called Democrats denigrating people who care about civil liberties. I guess the closest parallel we have is the reaction of some Democrats to the Vietnam protests. Unfortunately, it seems there are some Democrats who can't handle power any better than the Republicans do.

[Progressive dog]

86. Yes, some of us are questioning Libertarian ideas

First, if your version of Civil Liberties says, as Rand Paul does, that the government should allow lunch counter owners to keep out minorities, that is a version I can't support.
If your version says that we should take the word of Rand and other Paulites instead of our elected Democratic President over what civil liberties are being violated, then I disagree.
If your version lets you decide what the Constitution means (kind of like the Paulites do), then I disagree.

[newthinking]

94. It doesn't.

That is the problems with political framing. These topics are deeper than that, concepts like Civil liberties are too important to get stuck in binary thinking. Isn't that something that can be agreed on?

[Progressive dog]

101. We apparently have to agree on what civil liberties are

before we can discuss them. How can you have a democratic government without political thinking?
Should I give up my right to my opinion because you believe my opinion is binary thinking?
Rand Paul is for anarchy, not civil rights: the law of the every man for himself, not government.
I want our government to protect our civil rights from people like him.

[ucrdem]

102. +1

"I want our government to protect our civil rights from people like him." Nailed it.

[newthinking]

104. "politisized thinking" vs "political thinking

Very different.

Have you read about the science of framing and propaganda? Repubicans are leagues ahead of us, and they are effectively manipulating the public and even our party. That is one of the points of the OP.

[Progressive dog]

110. What are you replying to?

Your OP had no point other than a defense of anarchist Paul and his followers. That's the way I see it.
As I said, we need government to protect our civil liberties from Rand Paul. I'm not being manipulated by Republicans, Rand Paul is a Republican.

[newthinking]

113. That is not what the OP says

You might consider re-reading it?
In fact it specifically said it was not defending "rand paul" type libertarianism.

Everyone is being manipulated by Republicans. We are in the midst of the greatest assault on our language and thought process in history. You certainy must see that. If you don't then you will be hopelessly swayed. Did they teach the science behind modern advertising when you were in school? That is only the beginning of the science of the mind that is in use.

[Progressive dog]

115. Yes it does say that, Rand Paul is only for civil rights

for white males. Seeing support for his crap and trying to sell him as a civil libertarian is a sick joke.

Everyone is being manipulated by Republicans. We are in the midst of the greatest assault on our language and thought process in history

Could you explain that to me, in something resembling our language before the assault?

[nashville_brook]

87. it's sad and dangerous that some (here) think libertarians "own" civil liberties issues

and therefore dems should run from them.

civil liberties are in our DNA. you seriously have to question the motives (conscious and otherwise) of those who would reject that.

[ucrdem]

88. They don't. That's a straw man you just made up. nt

[nashville_brook]

90. oh, so your allies don't use rand/ron paul to defame dems supporting transparency in govt?

[ucrdem]

91. Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

Yes, that's a joke. Now seriously: I'd be happy to discuss the Pauls with you elsewhere but right now the issue is the term "libertarian" which I'm arguing is a linguistic Trojan horse and should be left at the gates, so to speak.

[newthinking]

95. I think they are heavily manipulated by framing

That is how effective political propaganda and framing is. It can cause an emotional reactivity to words that shortcuts the ability to think deeper about a subject.

And that has been done, in many cases, on purpose. There are people that benefit when they can effectively manipulate reactions to vocabulary, or shut down discussions.

The word "socialism" is a great example of a word that has been so heavily manipulated that people have difficulty even accurately having an intellectual discussion around it.

[ucrdem]

96. "Libertarian" was never our word and we don't need to take it back.

It's like "rotary" and "Rotarian." Yes they are cognates, no they don't mean the same thing. So why try to claim tainted goods? We don't need it and it just pollutes our message.

[newthinking]

99. "Liberty" and "Civil Liberty" have very much been so

and it is "Civil Liberties" that are being confused by the framing.

Like what happened with the word "freedom", if we give up the term, then the concepts behind the term are affected.

But I think we will have to agree to disagree. I see that you feel strongly as well about the subject.

So have I at least convinced you that not everyone that expresses concern about liberties on a site like this necessarily is talking about the "Rand Paul" type? Can we get agreement on that?

[ucrdem]

100. "Civil liberties" are *not* the same as "civil libertarian ideas," the term

you used in your OP title. Look them up if you need to. And pretending they DO mean the same thing is a textbook example of Lakoff-style RW framing.

[newthinking]

106. You didn't answer

So have I at least convinced you that not everyone that expresses concern about liberties on a site like this necessarily is talking about the "Rand Paul" type? Can we get agreement on that?

I am curious if we can at least get some recognition of common ground.

[ucrdem]

108. Actually, you've convinced me of what I suspected when you posted this. nt

[newthinking]

109. emotional reactions, suspicions, and stereotyping

You implication is that somehow people that don't agree with the way you think are an "opposition".

No use discussing this further. Welcome to ignore. I rarely use it. You are only the third person to make it there.

[ucrdem]

112. Rational reaction: TOS alert sent. Now I'm putting you on full ignore so adios. nt

[woo me with science]

120. The talking points deliberately manipulate with framing.

This is the level of contempt authoritarians have for the people. They assume that we are so unfathomably stupid that we will confuse "libertarianism" with "civil liberties" and mindlessly fall in line to cheer the destruction of our Constitutional protections.

This is how craven and manipulative these authoritarians really are, and this is how insulting, dishonest, and despicable their propaganda machine is. This the utter contempt with which they view Americans. And this is how blithely they assault the very foundations of our Constitution.

If anyone had any doubts how dangerous these plutocrats who have captured our government and our media really are, the Orwellian propaganda onslaught of the past few weeks should remove all doubt.

[Uncle Joe]

89. You nailed it.

Thanks for the thread, newthinking.

[woo me with science]

93. K&R

[baldguy]

105. Some people only want accountability, transparency, responsiveness & due process

When it can be abused to make Democrats & the Democratic Party look bad.

You want Obama to hold up these ideals, why can't we apply them the Snowden & Greenwald as well?

Maybe because Snowden & Greenwald can't hold up to such scrutiny.

[Progressive dog]

111. We are questioning Rand Paul's commitment to our understanding of civil rights.

Rand Paul is NOT a civil libertarian. Rand Paul is spokesman for an anarchist group, calling themselves Libertarians.
Rand Paul thinks that you get to decide how much liberty you give others to shop in your store, eat at your lunch counter, use your public (to other people) bathrooms.
Rand Paul doesn't like government. He wants to divide Americans into groups, and set us against each other. He thinks he'll be on the winning side.

[newthinking]

116. I don't disagree with you

Not sure why you think I do. It is discussions like this that divide us, when people who generally agree in many things get stuck on political hot points.

[Progressive dog]

117. Unless you explained yourself poorly in the OP

we do disagree.

[newthinking]

119. Enough people have understood what I wrote

in the context I intended it. I am sure my writing is not perfect. And especially when discussing political subjects, where language has been intentionally and scientifically under attack, it is easy to misunderstand each other.

But I think it is more likely that we are seeing the effects of the framwork that has been built around terms like "Liberty" and "Libertarian" philosophies. The Right wing has effectively convinced many that they own that term.

Have you read or watched a discussion of linguistics and the effect of language manipulation on the mind?

[Progressive dog]

121. I got it too, so I don't agree our views have

anything in common. Linguistics may be a hot topic for a linguist, but has nothing to do with Rand Paul's views on civil liberties.
You are the one who is confusing the name that Rand Paul gave his philosophy (Libertarian) with actual support for civil liberties. You are playing into the hands of the RW anti-civil liberties propaganda. Rand Paul supports civil liberties for white, heterosexual males only. (I am a white, heterosexual male) Civil rights are supposed to protect everyone.
I want my government to protect our civil liberties from scum like him, I don't want him anywhere near our civil liberties. I don't hold my values because of stupid stuff like.

"Just because "Libertarians", as in Rand Paul, happen to also believe in some ways in Civil Liberties does not mean that Democrats can not have some the same values."

You equated Libertarian with liberty with Rand Paul, none of those equations come close to truth. I do not support Rand Paul's stand on civil rights because I DISAGREE with his stand, not because of linguistics.

[Galraedia]

114. 'Civil' libertarian? Why not just call yourself a 'civil' liberal?

MLK was a liberal. Since when did we separate liberals from the civil liberties they fought for? That's like rewriting history and giving credit to something that didn't even become popular until the 1970s.

[newthinking]

118. That was the point of the OP

We (Democratic Party members in general) are effectively reducing our concern for many civil liberties. I would venture to estimate that is probably the biggest argument between members on this board.

I don't identify myself as a "Civil Libertarian". But it is simply reality that the verb, libertarian, as used outside of the "Party Name" of Rand Paul, is the appropriate term for part of the political spectrum we exist in.

[markiv]

123. any idea of Rand Paul's is bad

therefore, war and domestic spying is good