2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary has spent most of her political career denying she's a liberal
Now here she is presenting herself as having always been a liberal. There is no reason to believe Hillary 7.0- or whatever this newest iteration of Hillary is.
I have no sense of who she is fundamentally. And that's not my fault. She keeps reinventing herself to fit the prevailing zeitgueist.
I know she's a fighter- at least when it comes to fighting for herself. I know she evolves sharply on issues like immigration, marriage equality, criminal justice and war in Iraq- she didn't just vote for the IWR, she supported that vote and the war for yeas. I know she strongly supports the TPP, even though she's hedging on it. I know she feels entitled to not tell us where she stands on keystone.
I know she speaks out for racial justice but apparently that doesn't stop her from supporting what is arguably the most racist institution in America; the Death Penalty.
I know she desperately wants to be President and to make history. But she has not expressed a coherent governing philosophy beyond "fighting for you and being your champion".
She's been a prominent American figure for 25 years. I've followed her closely and I still don't have a sense of who she is or what, beyond women's equality, her core beliefs are.
https://m.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I think she started her career with specific ideals, but she's been so co-opted throughout the years that no one - maybe including herself - knows what her ideals are, now.
I'm not against "evolving" on certain things as you grow and learn more, but when you evolve on nearly everything - as you've pointed out - it begins to wear thin.
reddread
(6,896 posts)mendacious
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)I guess we've now lost the term "progressive", too, along with "liberal".
Fucking third way newspeak.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Economic liberal (in the 19th Century sense), bureaucratic reformer, with an ambitious interventionist streak and expansive authoritarian tendencies.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)Sounds familiar.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Is that the day of her birthday (I don't know when it is)?
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)a lot of times.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)18 was Huma, for instance.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Drops mic.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the is why words have become meaningless...judge them by their works.
George Orwell
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What was Elizabeth Warren's early lawyering job?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)What are you implying I'm missing here?: http://www.biography.com/people/elizabeth-warren-20670753#political-career
In November 2008, Warren was tapped by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to monitor the $700 billion bank bailout effort known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Warren headed investigations, conducted televised public hearings, led interviews of government officials and submitted monthly reports demanding accountability from banks. For her efforts, the Boston Globe named Elizabeth "Bostonian of the Year" in 2009.
In July 2011, Warren helped design the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The main goal of the CFPB was to police credit lenders and prevent consumers from unwittingly signing up for risky loans. But, due largely to Republican opposition, Warren was not chosen to head the agency. She stepped down from the post in August 2011, and in September 2011, President Obama appointed Warren as his special assistant.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for a mortgage brokerage that specialized in creating and selling CDO, specifically, Mortgage Backed Securities.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Interesting. Give us some links and an argument, not just innuendo.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you were talking about HRC' early employment ... and so was I.
Employment is rarely a political statement.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)just use them as stepping stones to move up the ladder.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)just use them as stepping stones to move up the ladder ... Rarely is employment a political statement.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....you don't always have that much of a choice anyway
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Because she saw how bad it could be from the inside.
She used to be a republican too. I guess she saw how bad that could be from the inside as well.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)When did she change her mind?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But not for a segment of DU's forgiving trying.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Other than your need to deflect attention away from a candidate you're totally not supporting gosh.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts),... employment is not a political statement , especially early employment, an does not depricate one's liberal credibility .
merrily
(45,251 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)People accept all sorts of employment in their early days ... and rarely, is that employment a political statement ... 30+ years later.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's also a false equivalency, inasmuch as Warren is not running for anything at all right now, let alone President. Remember? Every other post on this board used to be WARREN IS NOT RUNNING.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... the point is that early employment does not determine one's mature ideology and Warren us a good example of that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)so I disagree with you, but I do appreciate your input.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I would say not much has changed.
Then there is her support for the death penalty.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that would have employment, 30+ years ago, or even recently, as constituting some political statement.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)That quote really ground my gears with her.
The New York Times reported on March 17, 1992: "Hillary Clinton said today that she did not earn 'a penny' from state business conducted by her Little Rock law firm and that she never intervened with state regulators on behalf of a failed Arkansas savings and loan association. . . " Records would show that she did, in fact, represent Madison before the state securities department. After the revelation, she says, "For goodness sakes, you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks."
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/17/us/the-1992-campaign-hillary-clinton-defends-her-conduct-in-law-firm.html
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)to name a few never did work for banks and had law degrees........ Its her history and not propaganda
her words, and her character was showing when she was called out on her shall we say..... 'story' that she got called on.
I was a Brown supporter big time in 92 but ended up working to get Clinton elected......I never forgot that
history
Oh yeah and lets not forget all the money she got when speaking for Goldman and Citigroup.......
Now don't try to tell me it went to her charity, it didn't
Their tax records reveal that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Neither JFK nor Wellstone were lawyers. Wellstone did hold a Ph.D. in political science from uNC Chapel Hill,however. JFK held a B.S. cum laude in international affairs from Harvard. FDR, RFK and Jerry Brown were lawyers.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....hold a "real" job? I don't think either of them ever had to.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Just stick to the facts. Is there anything non-factual in that, except for Hillary's coy response?
Seems to be an extraordinary amount of "propaganda" out there going back a long, long time, according to the HRC campaign. Gee, you have to wonder why practically every major news media outlet has been printing such awful things about her for so long?
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)was she on his team? Is she running now?, Did Warren get money gigs speaking to Banks right before running for president? Is this thread about Warren?
I don't remember that, but I do know what I posted was the truth about someone that is running.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)when she said otherwise.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)politicians. Their sense of what is real and pragmatic, to me, as somebody who sees himself as a fighter for the little guy, seriously makes me wonder what makes her supporters feel she is so qualified to take up the fight of the little guy. I guess it's more trickle down. I just wish they'd stop pissing on our heads.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)self-advancement by whatever means are available to use for that purpose be they fair or foul.
Very Nixonesque in that respect.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She works in tandem with them. They should all be put on trial. I consider it shameful anyone in our party is gullible enough to believe her tales.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Ino
(3,366 posts)But I don't think she'll make it that far.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)questionseverything
(9,656 posts)bernie voting against the patriot act is one of my top three reasons for supporting him
LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)perhaps her whole life, and will do or say just about anything to get it. That's what I know.
cali
(114,904 posts)I truly have no idea.
LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)wants that job that bad. Something's got to be wrong with them. 
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She's been running for it nonstop for the last 15 years and seems to have no real reason to want the office other than holding it for the sake of holding it. The only other politician in modern times who has run for the presidency so long and so obsessively is Richard Nixon.
And IMO anyone who wants the office that badly should be presumptively disqualified from ever sitting in the Oval Office as anything but a guest.
840high
(17,196 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's ultimately what drives me crazy about her - and the political mentality she represents.
The GOP has a clear political ideology. "HAnds off. Let business do what it wants and let people do what they. Keep government small and let the private sector handle everything."
The Democratic Party is supposed to the counterpoint to that. But when we discard the basic philosophy that is the contrast, and water down its meaning, we become neutered.
We need real Liberalism as defined in mid 20th century America and Real Progressive Populism...And, while Socialism is a diffucult term, Democratic Socialism is also as aspect if that.
cali
(114,904 posts)And perpetrated the myth that liberals are against individual.liberty.
Response to Armstead (Reply #8)
cali This message was self-deleted by its author.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Progress that is typically expressed as increases in justice, equality, empathy, and dignity,
It is perhaps most unlike American political liberalism in that progressivism is impatient, and it lacks the depth of quality of tolerance to the status quo that puts up with very slow and incremental change.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Your definition is what I would associate with progressivism. Progressives -- as I understand it -- does require government intervention to protect the "level playing field" and the public interest and prevent the wealthy and powerful from getting too wealthy and powerful.
However, it's often used in the opposite faction by people like Clinton. It;s misused, actually, for political cover, to avoid being associated with liberalism. In fact, she is using it as a euphemism for conservatism.
In that video clip, Clinton is correct in the traditional meaning of liberalism and how it has been changed. FDR might have been better described as progressive in the sense of impatient action.
But Clinton's r disparaging of the role of "Big Government" is the problem. It distorts the meaning of progressive, and it also denigrates mid-20th Centiry American Liberalism, as a variant of progressive.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Neo_liberalism, which creates the wealth gap, and responsibility gap with respect to paying for society is about increasing "freedom" from regulation.
Progress is discussed relative to solving of a problem...for anti-government conservatives progress _is_ destruciton of government social programs.
In no small part that is why as labels of political movements Liberal and Progressive begin with capital letters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They have put the larger debate on GOP terms.
In the contemporary understandings, Capital L Liberal or Progressive, IMO, reflect similar goals -- the real difference is degree and pace. A difference between moderate and more activist/impatient.
Capital C Conservative and Libertarian are the opposite versions.
Life, and most people, actually exist as shades of grey, as a mix of degree and some contrasting instincts.
But the larger political debate is basically between those two options L or C in terms of how we deal with the core questions of distribution of Wealth and Power.
That is what gave the Democratic Party its strength and led to progressive/liberal advances.
But when the "centrist" Democrats stopped fighting for the L side in that larger context, they basically stopped the real debate and political push-and-pull, and gave the GOP (C side) an artificial advantage for 35 years.
I hope that doesn't sound too convoluted, because it ultimately is straightforward at its core, IMO.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)and unfortunately it is used in an effort to win electoral support.
Why have democrats done this for more than 25 years?
Because...the abandonment of labor, and changing welfare as we know it were conscious and intentional decisions.
These decisions were made mostly by conservative leaning democrats who wanted to gain access to a class of donors more wealthy than labor unions.
This perspective was accepted in the southern United States, where from the late 1960's on relocation of northern industries to union-free areas had expanded the economy increasing manufacturing. Democratic voters in the south saw value in the added jobs even if they came at the loss of union protections and reducing corporate participation in local tax-generation. This neo-liberal path -did- bring in industrial growth that in the south for much of the 20th century lagged behind the "Old Foundry States".
At the same time this created new jobs and the right to work for less, it created opportunities for politicians to benefit from the developing symbiosis between politicians and corporations. Seeking that benefit was for the political insiders just what the creation of the DLC was all about.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and don't get me started on the fear-based hype about the "global economy" that the Corporate/GOP/Dem centrists perpetuated to even undermine any benefits of that internal migration
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)If you look at Arkansas' history on labor from the 80s on, one will find teachers unions and other unions were diminished on purpose then look at where and when it started and with who.
But some don't like history.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)in order to entice them to introduce jobs was most unfortunate.
What resulted was an economic model in which much revenue needed to support communities was sacrificed for what was by comparison an ever increasingly stingy trickle of wages.
It's now very difficult for communities to attract corporate businesses without what amounts to open bribery.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
salib
(2,116 posts)And a poor, even dangerous definition.
Your assumption about the GOP's "clear political ideology" is way off base. Sounds idealized, at best, and certainly scrubbed. What you describe has nothing in common with the GOP hard right fundamentalist, war making, corporate welfare loving, anti abortion, craziness, as I see it. Mostly sounds like a convenient side story that plays to Koch-laced fantasies.
Hence, the wrong and even dangerous definition: "The Democratic Party is supposed to the counterpoint to that.". First, we should never define ourselves in terms of others. That is not a definition. It is a gripe.
Secondly, it is dangerous because it is defining us in terms that these crazies would like for the world to concentrate on.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)
The ills you are referring to from the GOP are all true. But there are several aspects to that which are important. In order to compete against the opposite side (GOP/Conservatism) you have to understand the positive aspects, and why it appeals to people.
Liberal/Progressive and Conservative/Libertarian both reflect two sides of human nature -- Self interest and the common good. We all have a mix of each one. No one -- even staunch liberals, for example, LIKES paying taxes or having their personal freedom limited. Even staunch conservatives believe there is a role for government, such as common defense. Politics is the public expression of that push-and-pull.
Each party does have to position itself both "for" the values it claims to represent and against those in contrast. That is the source of strength of the GOP. They are not only "for" freedom, etc, but against "big government liberals" etc. They lie about the things they are against.
The GOP since Nixon have been hypocritical on the personal level, but totally consistent in terms of Wealth and Power. By that, I mean the fundamentalist, anti-abortion, authoritarian aspects are totally contrary to the principles of actual Conservatism. The GOP used those as a "edge" to con people to their side. The Libertarians are the only real conservatives these days. But the GOP/Conservatives are totally consistent in the Wealth and Power issues.
But on a more basic level, the FOP stood for Self-Interest/Conservatism but the Democrats failed to stand up and defend the "common good" side sufficiently, except on nebulous terms. And when the so-called "centrists" like the Clintons joined the GOP in criticized things like "Bg Giovernment" they were playing right into the hands of the GOP and their false assumptions. -- INSTEAD OF challenging them.
salib
(2,116 posts)We cannot define ourselves in terms of the others. That is the road to... (well, anyone can fill in the blanks).
We must have and always present our own positive message. And we Definitely do!
I find it a very dangerous mistake to confuse need for understanding of the opposite side with the idea of defining oneself in opposition to what is then supposedly understood about that other side.
There are NO "Positive Aspects" to the Republican "opposite side." That your posts (so far in this discussion) have referred to that idea consistently is very troubling to me. Religious right crazies who control the Republican party are NOT presenting anything positive for the 99%. Just try Thom Hartmann's challenge (http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/what-good-have-conservatives-done-america).
Besides, the "opposite side" could disappear tomorrow and we would still have the same goals to improve the lot in life for the 99%, ensure true equal rights, opportunities and fulfillment for all people (including those suckered into the "positive aspects" of the "opposite side"
, truly protect and improve the state of our environment,...
It has nothing to do with a THEM, and everything to do with us.
Letting "them" define "the stated principles as a starting point" means letting them define the terms and conclusions of the argument.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)that we don't live in a binary either/or world.
The GOP/conservative/corporate "side" has pushed the debate on a rightward direction because they appeal to certain aspects of people and human nature. What are those, and how do we respond to them?
Some of those instincts, are dark and nor defensible. Lizard brain shit.
But there are also legitimate complaints that can translate into ideology. To use a specific example -- environmental regulations are good and necessary to save the planet. However, if someone wants to add a small deck on their house, but they are blocked by needlessly complex and irrelevant local building codes and overzealous enforcement, they are likely to become more cynical about environmental protection overall.
In order to challenge that, it's necessary to build a message that emphasizes policies that are reasonable and address the truly relevant environmental issues. Building codes are local, but that will affect how people view tjem on a macro level.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)As it's used in politics evolve most often simply means change in opinion. And it's a tool of euphemism intended to obfuscate what is too often Machiavellian maneuvering.
The linguist roots of evolving have to do with revealing something as it unrolls, as a scroll might be unrolled revealing an epic narrative of heroic actions.
The biological phenomenon with that label is the unrolling story of changing diversity, a changing of type moving toward ever increasing richness against the challenges of a ravaging environment and escape from threats of extinction. Is that really anything like the 'evolution' of personal positioning on political issues? Really?
A euphemism like "evolving" is needed in political rhetoric to get around the taint that often accompanies attitude/position changes, that otherwise would be spoken of as inconsistent flip-flop, blowing-with-the-wind or personal-serving "triangulation",
That's not to say we don't wish for people to change. As we grow from childhood to elders, we hope to become better through maturing change in things like emotional control and critical thinking, we hope to be better able to use experience as a lever to solve problems for ourselves and others. What we hope for ourselves, our children and our would-be political leaders is not that we not merely change our opinions, but that our personal characters evolve making us stronger, tempered and wiser people.
Evolving really isn't an attempt to stay in step with the fashion of the current political season or trends. That's why our culture 'evolved' negative phrases like, blowing-in-the-wind.
If we take a moment to look at the unrolling stories of this year's democratic candidates, there is really one whose personal story stands out as having grown deeper, stronger, and wiser all while staying true to fundamental belief that our destiny should be in communities that provide a quality of liberty only possible through commerce in equality, empathy and fraternite'.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)
ion_theory
(235 posts)I think people are now starting to realize, after the empty promises of Obama and non-stop BS spewing from the media on the right (looking at you Fox so-called News), that flip-flopping goes hand in hand with these people. Add that with a pissed off electorate and you get Trump and Bernie starting to lead in polls. One because he's outside the realm of politics and talks tough and the latter because he has had virtually the same views since the 70s, all of which have either come to fruition or are the leading populist opinions. It's really amazing what we're seeing right now politically in this country and let's hope it ends well.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Class or Ideology? My Conversation With Bernie Sanders
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/upshot/class-or-ideology-my-conversation-with-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary has upheld whatever benefits Hillary
oberliner
(58,724 posts)As he says in the interview, "the issues that could potentially rally disaffected lower- and- middle-class voters “cross traditional liberal-conservative lines."
With respect to HRC, she has not always been ideologically consistent, I agree.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the core role of government is to arbitrate in issues of Wealth and Power.
That determines the basic quality of life. it also affects how we handle all otehr specific issues.
Sknce the 1970's the culture wats have been used to distract from that basic equation. People may have legitimate differences over gay marriage, and those have to be dealt with also. However, they also exist in the context of the fundamental structure of who has the wealth and power.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Who are they that are party to the detracting of that equality? They are the enemy of the perfect union. Role of government is to perfect the state of each individual at the expense of all governed. To me, that is Liberalism. Conservatives work against a perfect union to derive all benefits for themselves leaving others in the dust; or in the ground after a fascist war for profits. Sanders wants to return to a government based on liberalism. IMO, it is time for Sanders to campaign on the removal of fascists in Congress. To start with, that is anyone who voted to take down the tax code for millionaires, billionaire and corporations during the first GW Bush term.
There is plenty of money in this rich country to reestablish equality. Free and equal education to include college, is the best way to begin, after the tax code returns to sanity. Senator Warren says that the Congress should greatly reduce student loan debt.
I hope Sander's campaigns more on the supportive importance of the down ticket, as a new 50 state strategy. If Sander's does not become President, I hope Senator Warren announces her candidacy for President in 2017 and starts campaigning in 2017, no matter who is siting in the Oval Office. Many of us here on DU believe that Warren started campaigning soon after being elected to the Senate.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Hillary 7.2 builds on her longstanding faux qualities of being a FIGHTER and a WINNER. She's now the most progressive Progressive in all progressivedom! She totally cares about income inequality and all of that other moonbat crap, is a lifelong advocate for civil rights for minorities, and... heck, she's just plain cool!
You in?
Autumn
(45,109 posts)comprehension.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Would you help us with some testing? Suppose Hillary 7.3 makes a courageous stand by coming out against cruelty to cats. Would that sway you?
Autumn
(45,109 posts)I'm a bit of a dog person myself. Cats IMO for the most part are republicanish, they are all me, me, me. 
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)dogs would respond to their DU mail while cats might not?
Autumn
(45,109 posts)they will correct it and respond. Dogs are just fun. Cat's not so much. Purely as a hypothetical. 
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)against cruelty to dogs, but there are great risks. Dogs have very large droppings that can be seen in public - the optics aren't good.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)I live in the city and I have a Papillon. Big difference in the droppings, a huge difference. If Hillary 7.x were to bravely come out against cruelty to dogs in fact I would demand that of anyone, I would deeply respect her. But just as I really like my Daughters Akbash, I adore my Papillon and can never switch my negligence.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)My two deadbeat Labs demand them. One goes so far as to grab you by the arm (gently) and lead you to the freezer. If that doesn't work, he'll tell you off!
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Or is there something more specific about Stacy's Mom in particular that you find sexist?
Response to Autumn (Reply #19)
MisterP This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)She voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Case Closed!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)as I hope people wouldn't hold my brief high school infatuation with Ayn Rand against me - same period of life.
I'll stick with the issues of her adulthood - there's plenty there.
pandr32
(11,588 posts)We are to a large degree a product of our environment...socialized to have certain views and values. We see that happen in red states and in the Bible Belt for sure. What is something special, however, is when there is an awakening of someone raised that way, as HC was, to a different perspective...a different set of values. She has never looked back.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)really, not much of a leap there.
pandr32
(11,588 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The list is a very, very long one.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage"
Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.
Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/
JFK was not wishy washy .............
mountain grammy
(26,626 posts)if only, if only.......
In 1960, I was 13, living with my sister and widowed mother. My mom was a die hard Stevenson supporter, but by the time she voted in November of 1960, she said "I feel like I'm voting for FDR again." Such hope!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
If you read her books, you know that her mother had a miserable childhood - basically was abandoned, and then married a man who was so controlling and abusive that if HRC came home with A's from school, he belittled her by belittling any school which gave her an A. Her father was physically abusive as well.
Some kids with abusive parents get in to trouble, others double down and try twice as hard to win parental approval, i.e, love. It's not what you DO(getting an A), it's the end results (parental approval) - we see this in people who will do anything, justify anything if it results in a win. Winning isn't the most important thing - it's the ONLY thing.
Some of you may have studied Maslow's research with rhesus monkeys - particularly the study where cloth covered wire cones with a false monkey face on top were equipped with nursing bottles w/ the nipple protruding from the middle of what would be the chest area.
Infant monkeys were removed from their mothers and paired with one of these "cloth mothers". Then Maslow introduced pain to the equation. The babies would receive electric shocks from the mothers, or short, sharp knives were placed around the nipple so that the babies would be cut when they tried to nurse. The results? The more pain the babies received from the faux mothers, the tighter the babies clung to the mothers. Their instincts were that parents were supposed to comfort and nurture them.
The findings from this experiment were used to demonstrate and explain why abused human children still clung to their abusive parents. In particular, it influenced enlightened judges/social workers from deciding whether or not to return children to abusive parents based on asking the child if they wanted to go home.
Is it so surprising that a child growing up placing satisfying his/her parental source of love above all else, no matter how much abuse or rejection, then stays in an abusive marriage? But he's/she's my husband/wife. He/she is supposed to love me. It must be my fault.
The following NYT excerpt was originally posted in the Hillary Clinton group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110713163
Revealing, and somewhat disturbing: Hillary Clinton Draws Scrappy Determination From a Tough, Combative Father
"As a little girl, if Hillary Rodham forgot to screw the cap back on the toothpaste, her father would toss the tube out the bathroom window. She’d scurry around in the snow-covered evergreen bushes outside their suburban Chicago home to find it and return inside to brush her teeth, reminded, once again, of one of Hugh E. Rodham’s many rules.
When she lagged behind in Miss Metzger’s fourth-grade math class, Mr. Rodham would wake his daughter at dawn to grill her on multiplication tables. When she brought home an A, he would sneer: 'You must go to a pretty easy school.'
Mrs. Clinton has made the struggles of her mother, Dorothy Rodham, a central part of her 2016 campaign’s message, and has repeatedly described Mrs. Rodham’s life story to crowds around the country. But her father, whom Mrs. Clinton rarely talks about publicly, exerted an equally powerful, if sometimes bruising, influence on the woman who wants to become the first female president.
The brusque son of an English immigrant and a coal miner’s daughter in Scranton, Pa., Mr. Rodham, for most of his life, harbored prejudices against blacks, Catholics and anyone else not like him. He hurled biting sarcasm at his wife and only daughter and spanked, at times excessively, his three children to keep them in line, according to interviews with friends and a review of documents, Mrs. Clinton’s writings and former President Bill Clinton’s memoir."
http://t.co/LxfS5ft51H via NYTimes
cali
(114,904 posts)It's quite enlightening
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I have always been suspicious of people who really WANTED to be, president. REALLY wanted it. As an end in itself.
There was a great quote that I can not find and do not remember whose it is. It went something like this--
"Those people who have the qualities actually needed to be a great president (or national leader), often (usually) also possess qualities that would prohibit them from ever wanting anything to do with being president."
certainot
(9,090 posts)for 25 years she's been a lightning rod for the right's attack machine and war on women.
if we want more wellstones, sanders, and warrens in politics it's up to us citizens to create a political and media environment where more exceptional and fearless citizens can run and win and function effectively in government without having to worry about family safety and raising huge amounts of money.
one way the left has totally let such people down and completely fucked up is by completely ignoring the right's most important weapon- 1000 coordinated radio stations reaching 50 mil a week with whatever their think tanks want to pump through them.
400 ignorant scripted loudmouths screaming the same lies distortions and exaggerations from stations licensed to operate in the public interest, and at least 25% of them allowed to parasitize over 90 major publicly funded university sports programs to help them sell their lies.
as long as the left gives rw radio a free speech free ride and keeps underestimating the right's most important weapon they will control messaging in the US. they will decide what and who is 'acceptable' for america, and how much compromising a democratic politician has to do to win or get anything done.
if bernie is the nominee those 1000 radio stations will be lying about him and obstructing him on behalf of the billionaires he threatens. and if the left is still ignoring them the billionaires and their servants will have the confidence to try anything because they know they'll be able to sell it to tens of millions before the left starts seeing it on fox or the sunday morning shows.
and the left will not deserve bernie because we won't be getting his back.
and if hillary is the nominee i'll certainly be voting for her.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)One of the biggest screwups in terms of conrrol of the media was the Media Deregulation of the 1990's, which Bill Cinton supported. It removed the ownership caps on broadcast stations, which allowed the Big Corporations like Clear Channel to buy up radio stations and buld those conservatuves.
certainot
(9,090 posts)since reagan killed the fairness doctrine in 1997. and it was and still is mostly invisible to those who least like what it pushes.
by the mid 90's they'd already subsidized limbaugh all over the country - they already had him and some of his spawn working on hundreds of radio stations, excluding competition, and working over the clintons to stop health care reform, sell lewinsky, and obstruct, force compromise and deregulation, and push them right. gingrich would be nothing without limbaugh and sons.
500 radio stations with limbaugh and a complementary lineup of other national and local liars on those and another 500, repeating the same think tank scripted PSYOPS all day, is a monopoly of the airwaves, whether their owned by 100 republican owners or 3.
it was already over then, and today the left still continues the biggest political mistake in history.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)to recognize that as one of the symptoms of the Clinton Third Way that stifles acytual progress as much as Limbaugh. Just in a different way.
certainot
(9,090 posts)as dictated by the MSM, to the left.
one way to do that so we can be rid of third way and blue dogs is to go on the offensive and do something about republican radio.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)And millions support her simply for that. Other issues are secondary. It could well work this time around, like the Academy Awards, it's her turn this time.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)
and "the Black candidate," and actually talking about the issues she's backed or hasn't is some shameful privilege-defensive questioning of all minoritydom
but even when supporters and proxies try to pull race or sex cards her record is typically far behind (once all the claims that Black people are scared for their safety at Sanders rallies blew over)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)Which is why she will never be POTUS.
President of what else, I don't know.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Nobody
cali
(114,904 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)Hell, we got the idiot son, the voters want someone new, not someone from the 90s with so much drama.
The country has Hillary Fatigue and will vote for change, even if it's a stupid move.
Not worth the chance, I squarely support Sanders and O'Malley and think either has a better chance than Hillary but prefer Sanders.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)insurmountable. Reason it out for us. I'm listening.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I think Bernie will win Iowa and NH. Then Clinton will carry SC and pretty much everything else. She will then face Bush in the GE and win. I think that is the most likely scenario but not the only possible one.
cali
(114,904 posts)is outside the democratic party, and I'm referring to independents. And you ignore the trends which have been steadily bad for her for months
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)and statistacally insignificant anarchist/green/naderite asylums.
cali
(114,904 posts)She can't win without them.
840high
(17,196 posts)have a good representation how people feel about Hillary.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)with good reason.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)She is quite liked and trusted in the Democratic Party.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Are you serious?
Meh.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
I have the same impression of Hillary. She is too closely tied to the Wall St. crowd for my taste. But I'm waiting for the debates and the remainder of the campaign before making a serious commitment to a particular candidate. Wish her the best of luck.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Sanders has spent most of his life denying he is a Marxist.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)nm
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I agree that would be a reform I could get behind, but once again, not really Marxist.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)But thanks for a sample of Republican talking points once Bernie's the nominee. I hope by then enough Americans will have gotten to know him well enough to laugh that crap off the stage. "The next step..." -- getting pretty McCarthyite, there.
Or maybe your heroine or her proxies will start it on their own? Sorta like how she got all vague and maybe-ish when asked about Obama's "Muslim" roots.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Did you think you could slip in a remark that wouldn't get a response because it's off topic? And then you call someone on it for responding? 
frylock
(34,825 posts)do you think that their is any truth to that?
R. P. McMurphy
(834 posts)"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible." (1.3.16)
Big Bubba won't like it if you don't get your memory under control.
-------------------------------
I AM WINSTON SMITH!
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I didn't know that...thanks for posting.
cali
(114,904 posts)the op reflects hate.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Your posts continue to charm as ever though, keep em coming...between you and manny, there's always something to keep the place warm..
Gman
(24,780 posts)If the liberal brand got damaged, she's not to blame and is smart to avoid the label.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)I thought they say she's not a liberal! I don't get it.
cali
(114,904 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)I think she always has been a great leader and role model. That's why she's one of the most admired women in the world.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Us liberals knew she wasn't.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... aren't progessive either
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Paka
(2,760 posts)
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...I don't think that video is bad for her. It's not the JFK-style response we might have preferred, but I think she comes off okay, especially in the context of it being 2007. As someone else pointed out, Sanders doesn't call himself a liberal either. I don't think getting hung up on semantics is productive, whether you're arguing about "liberal" or "socialist" for that matter. Regardless of labels, you can just look at the actual positions.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)whats your point? Shes not allowed to change her views? Double standard anyone? Yup! Women held to higher standard than men? Yup yup!
cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary tacks on positions depending on the political winds. And this woman and feminist thinks your sexism charge is a steaming pile of dog shit.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Bernie 2016
RandySF
(58,926 posts)There was a long period during which Republicans made the word poison.
Response to cali (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)McCaskill comes to mind.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)To know what Hillary 'thinks' wet your finger and stick it up n the air...........which ever way the wind blows.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)when she presents herself as a progressive. Great post.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'm a progressive and if she is, too, then she is also a retired kamikaze pilot. A progressive doesn't say criticizing Wall Street banks is "foolish", a progressive doesn't let one of her aides say that she won't reinstate Glass-Steagall without publicly admonishing him and a progressive doesn't support an odious free trade deal that establishes an investor/state dispute settlement panel that allows greedy corporate polluters to make an end run around democratic institutions.
And your typical boring cherry-picking.
Not that you have displayed any interest at all in objectivity, but a pretty concise list, and a record that distinctly shows her positions fully match a very progressive profile:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
Now, now, please don't disappoint now. Give me the 3 or 4 lines of the couple hundred that don't meet progressive ideals.. sort of like your OP.
I mean really.. just how many thousands of posts do you Bernatics need to make claiming that our future president is a corporatist, a capitalist, a DINO, or any of the other hundreds of slurs before you're finally convince yourselves that they are true?
You keep going for the unicorns, I'll go for progress.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So, why would Bernie align himself with that motley crew?
I suppose he just lost the all-important, invaluable Canadian vote, eh?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)How ironic considering the entire point of the OP.
cali
(114,904 posts)should act like. He works to get democrats elected. He donates to democrats. A rose by any other name and all.that. he's a far better democrat than, for instance, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Hillary has no coherent governing philosophy. That is disturbing, coming as it does, from someone who wants so desperately to be President.
you never will...
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm reasonably intelligent, well educated and I listen. I'm not looking for perfection, ponies or unicorns. I'd have a lot more responses for her if she was straightforward.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)the fault of she who would be queen...
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”
-Bernie Sanders
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/upshot/class-or-ideology-my-conversation-with-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie is the real deal. He says what he thinks and stays true to his stated beliefs and values.
By contrast, Hillary is fake. She says whatever she thinks will get her ahead and changes her values to suit prevailing opinion.
This is obvious. We've seen it over and over again.
So Bernie supporters like him for his honesty and principled stand on the issues. While Hillary supporters like her for herself and could care less where she stands on the issues. They just want her in the presidency and don't give a damn what she'd do after she got there.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)You're right, he wouldn't put it that way. He's more of a plain thinker and plain speaker than me. That's one of about a million reasons why he'd make a better president than me. And you. And Hillary.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)on the political compass
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)From Dictionary.com
Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
Progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)To define the terms.
I remember not too long ago lots of people claiming to be progressive instead of liberal. To them liberal meant fuddy duddy 70s do gooder who were completely ineffective. Progressive at the time was ironically the more liberal of the two terms.
In my opinion they also were running away from the "L" word that had been so successfully demonized by the right and the media. By the late 80s and beyond to claim to be a liberal was the same as admitting your name was Poindexter.
But to be honest the tem started falling out of favor with the Kennedy administration who wanted to distance themseleves from the New Dealers and pointy headed intellectuals like Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy and his inner circle like to view themselves as pragmatists free from ideology.
I'm glad that Sanders supporters are trying to reclaim the word Liberal though I often disagree with how the demonstrate their liberalism.
I also wonder how they would respond to Steve Kangas' description of liberalism.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
But back to the OP, I don't know if your definition of liberalism is the same as the popular definition in 2008 or even earlier. It's a good idea to define your terms.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)She is Neo not liberal. I recently watched her speech supporting Dubya and his plan to bomb Irag. She was so wrong on so much, showed gullibility in taking Bush and Cheney at their word.
It cost her the 2008 nomination and ought to cost her this one; Bernie like Obama was not taken in on the rush to shock and awe.
There is more that is troubling but that vote, and her dumb or chicken answer, stand out to me.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)She doesn't say she considers herself neo. And progressive is a synonym for liberal -- everywhere except among a select group of nit-picking DUers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Actions speak louder than words.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)What's wrong with her choosing to call herself a progressive?
In the real world, the words "liberal" and "progressive" are synonyms.
From Dictionary.com
Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
Progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Her record on the Iraq war, the environment, opposition to marriage equality and pro-death penalty stance (just to name a few) calls her alleged liberal progressiveness into question.
Actions speak louder than words.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)but not good enough for HRC!
I get it. Well, it's good enough for ME, and I vote!
I am sick and tired of this denigrating the term Liberal.
I am proud to be a Liberal, and NOT just a "Progressive."
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
