logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?, William F. Buckley doesn't think so
Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?
Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?
Yes [ 9 ] ** [20.45%]
No [ 31 ] ** [70.45%]
Maybe, Don't Know, Not Sure, Other [ 4 ] ** [9.09%]
Total Votes: 44
  
Victoria Silverw...
post Sep 24 2007, 09:16 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



I found this quote on a completely unrelated thread:

QUOTE("TheFoundersIntent")
Hillary Clinton . . . is a known socialist . . .


I dispute this. I would say that there is no major American politician who could accurately be called a socialist (let alone a Socialist.) This perception comes about, I think, from the position that any political position which is not firmly conservative is socialist. It's a good scare word, now that "liberal" is not quite so poisonous a term as it was during the Reagan years. Frankly, I think it's as inaccurate as calling any political position which is not firmly liberal "fascist."

Don't take my word for it. Let's ask William F. Buckley, one of the great intellects of modern American conservatism, what he thinks.

Link

QUOTE
Well, she is sort of ... left-wing, no?

Well, not entirely. In her early political life she was a cheerleader for Barry Goldwater. If she had married George Wallace, and if he had then gone to the White House, is there any reason to suppose that she would not have espoused the views expected of Mrs. George Wallace?

There are those who point to her preposterous health plan as evidence of her ideological naivete, her capacity to fondle statist models for dealing with social issues.

Well, yes, she is certainly a liberal. But there aren't any grounds for believing she is a hard-core socialist.

There are only grounds for believing that she is comfortable occupying positions that maximize her political popularity. She does this with a broad smile, a lovely face, and a piquant sense of destiny. Barack Obama has to pry out a position more central, and then center in on it. Either that, or find for the Democratic party some other, engaging view of what to do for our fatherland/motherland.


(I deliberately choose a firmly conservative commentator who is no fan of Senator Clinton.)

Opportunist, yes. Socialist, no.

For the sake of fairness, let me offer an opinion from someone who thinks that Clinton really is a socialist.

Link

QUOTE
Since the day she became a United States Senator, she has been running for president. Toward that end, she understands better than any, that she has to successfully deceive enough Americans into believing she is a “centrist” -- instead of the committed socialist she is – in order to obtain the most powerful office in the world.


The fact that this article ends with an utterly paranoid nightmare about President Hillary Clinton speaks for itself, I think.

QUOTE
Washington, DC – September 11, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton received the following joint communiqué from the leadership of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez: “Because your policies so easily allowed us to reconstitute our powers and infiltrate your pathetically porous borders, we have hidden three nuclear weapons in three major American cities. If you try to find them, we will set them off. If you do not give in to our demand, we will set them off. Our demand? That you surrender your nation to us or suffer the loss of millions of Americans. There will be no negotiation.”

Washington, DC – September 12, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton surrendered the United States of America to terrorists.


(Never mind the rather bizarre linking of Chavez with Islamist fanatics; this whole scenario is absurd.)

To Be Debated:

Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Julian
post Sep 24 2007, 12:58 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?

No, she isn't, because she doesn't espouse any socialist policies.

My definition of socialism is the old British Labour Party constitution's Clause IV:
QUOTE


Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange by workers by hand or brain. That means nationalisation of private businesses. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mrs Clinton is not suggesting that any industries be nationalised, therefore she is not a "true" socialist. The closest she might come is by overhauling th US healthcare system to include more tax-funding and government direction, which might just sneak into this definition under the "best obtainable system of popular administration of each industry or service", but even that isn't really truly socialist because it's only talking about ONE industry or service.

There are no socialists active in national politics in the USA to my knowledge, let alone in the running for a presidential nomination.

Hell, there are scant few left in national politics in the UK (where Clause IV was defined and adopted) since Tony Blair took over as Labour leader and removed Clause IV from the party constitution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Sep 24 2007, 02:59 PM
Post #3


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



Notwithstanding the way the term "socialist" is bandied about by right-wing rhetoreticians, what differentiates socialism from capitalism is that under capitalism, the means of production are in private hands, and the profits of production fall into the hands of the ownwers. "Ownership" of capital is, indeed, merely the writ in law to exercise the powers just described. Under socialism, capital is essentially eliminated, and the means of production are in public hands. Thus under capitalism, how much to consume out of the profits of prodution, and how much and in what projects to reinvest them, are private decisions; under socialism these are public decisions. Under socialism, loosely speaking, the farms and factories become like the roads and bridges in terms of their planning and administration. A better analogy might be with toll roads, since in general, profits are earned.

Contrary to a common misunderstanding, this distinction has essentially nothing to do with the level of social services provided to citizens in general by the state. It is to be supposed that a socialist state would supply more public services than a state whose purpose was to facilitate capitalism, but this distinction isn't the essential one.

In Marxist theory it's usually supposed that socialism will come about through the working class achieving sufficient political power to enable it essentially to dictate a thoroughgoing transformation; it's difficult to conceive of this happening while subtantial political power is weilded by capitalists, certainly. But there are alternative schools of thought whereby the "nationalizaton" of large branches of industry is seen to be consistent with, and politically possible under, the preservation of capitalism in many or most sectors.

The idea that Hilary Clinton is a socialist is, of course, ridiculous. Since when has she proposed the expropriation of the means of production and the elimination of the stock market? Since when, indeed, has she called for political struggle on a class basis? No, dear friends, Hilary Clinton is about as progressive in her understanding of these questions as Dwight Eisenhower was.

This silly talk of socialism is just rhetoric from the health insurance industry, who are terribly worried right now that the next administration won't allow them to keep their excessively generous piece of the health expenditure pie. Personally I hope for a single payer system; but even if it came about, I certainly wouldn't hail it as socialism.

This post has been edited by Vladimir: Sep 24 2007, 03:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 24 2007, 05:40 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,353
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?

She was raised a Republican and changed to Democrat somewhere along the way, getting on Bill's good side I imagine but don't know for sure.

The only thing that brings on accusations of being a socialist is that Hillary favors social programs. In today's US politics, that equates to being a socialist.

I know, it's a brainless stretch. I don't agree with it for one moment. But it makes some people feel better, it doesn't cost very much and it lasts a long time.

I agree that the drug company/HMO lobbyists are hard at it early on. Maybe they'll win again, but times, they have been a-changing. Fewer people can afford health insurance and the prices have kept shooting up and up, both for insurance and service. But only the Democrats are looking for a solution. That makes them socialists on the far right, which is all that's left. No, right. Well you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 24 2007, 05:55 PM
Post #5


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



No she is IMO a center left Democrat who is trying hard (now that she is running) to look more conservative (for the independents she hopes to pick up) and more liberal for the left wing of the party as represented by MoveOn etc.


Nothing in her (or anyone else’s for that matter) position is Socialist. That said she, I am sure, supports increased “socialization” such as this health care for kids bill that is now been vetoed by GB.

This bill would have, if passed, effectively moved millions of “kids” (some 25 years old) from private to Federal insurance. I did not hear her condemn it.

As I have said before “real” Socialism is nearly dead in the world – RIP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 24 2007, 06:02 PM
Post #6


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



the minute a self proclaimed conservative calls someone besides, oh Marx, a "socialist"- I label them in my mind "moron, idiot, ignorant"- who is just parroting whatever right wing radio says that day, and they just gobble up what those folks say- and don't even try to figure out if they are being led down a path.

There is no succesful elected politician in this country that could be called socialist- they need corporate sponsorship in order to get to higher office-so they are not for all means of production in the hands of goverment.

Can't think of a single federal level lawmaker calling for a nationalization of all industry hmmm.gif Can you? Maybe there is some obscure lawmaker somewhere demanding GM be turned into a nationalized industry? hmmm.gif

Regulation or an entity like welfare is not socialist- it has nothing to do with a federal takeover of an industry.

It is nothing more than a boogeyman for idiots to follow, basically.

Those that believed the swift boat liars are in the same group- total morons that shouldn't be allowed to breed- much less vote- they just don't have the brain power to think for themselves or really figure out how to tie thier shoes- rolleyes.gif - but, folks like Rush and his ilk rely on thier listeners to BE ignorant and not research issues for themselves-

and it is something that our founding fathers were so afraid of straight rule of the majority- it wasn't just elitism- but a free society depends on an educated and informed voters to keep this kind of thing from happening. And voters in America usually don't even know who they are voting for at the local level, or bond issues, or anything like that- they don't even bother to research things that are in thier nieghborhood that effect them every day.

In the Kerry election- folks believed that Kerry was going to take away thier bibles in Arkansas and other southern states.

I even heard one preacher up here espousing that view. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by CruisingRam: Sep 24 2007, 06:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 24 2007, 07:22 PM
Post #7


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Those that believed the swift boat liars are in the same group- total morons that shouldn't be allowed to breed- much less vote- they just don't have the brain power to think for themselves or really figure out how to tie thier shoes- - but, folks like Rush and his ilk rely on thier listeners to BE ignorant and not research issues for themselves-

Hey I feel the same way about anyone who believes one word of the clap trap that comes out of Ted kennedy’d mouth. tongue.gif

As mentioned the term “Socialist” gets mixed up with “socialized”. Thus if we turn over health care to government control it will be “socialized”. Certainly no one can say this country is purely “capitalist”.


“United States Economy, all of the ways goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed by individuals and businesses in the United States. The U.S. economy is immense. In 2005 it included more than 295 million consumers and more than 20 million businesses. U.S. consumers purchase more than $6 trillion of goods and services annually, and businesses invest over a trillion dollars more for factories and equipment. In addition to spending by private households and businesses, government agencies at all levels (federal, state, and local) spend roughly an additional $2 trillion a year. In total, the annual value of all goods and services produced in the United States, known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was $12.5 trillion in 2005.”


Thus “government” = 15% of our immense 12.5 trillion $ economy.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_174150...es_Economy.html



http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap6.htm



And in fact we have a person who calls himself a “socialist” in the Congress – from Vermont.

The Senate has had plain speakers before, but it has never before had a politician who calls himself a socialist - not even a "democratic socialist," as Mr Sanders specifies.
But he clearly thinks Washington needs at least one, as he praises the achievements of Europe's social-democratic parties in health care, housing, education and reduction of child poverty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Sep 24 2007, 08:07 PM
Post #8


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 24 2007, 05:55 PM) *
No she is IMO a center left Democrat who is trying hard (now that she is running) to look more conservative (for the independents she hopes to pick up) and more liberal for the left wing of the party as represented by MoveOn etc.


Nothing in her (or anyone else’s for that matter) position is Socialist. That said she, I am sure, supports increased “socialization” such as this health care for kids bill that is now been vetoed by GB.

This bill would have, if passed, effectively moved millions of “kids” (some 25 years old) from private to Federal insurance. I did not hear her condemn it.

As I have said before “real” Socialism is nearly dead in the world – RIP.


Left of center? The only democrat on this continent to her right, that I can see, is Holy Joe Lieberman.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 24 2007, 08:49 PM
Post #9


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 24 2007, 11:22 AM) *
QUOTE
Those that believed the swift boat liars are in the same group- total morons that shouldn't be allowed to breed- much less vote- they just don't have the brain power to think for themselves or really figure out how to tie thier shoes- - but, folks like Rush and his ilk rely on thier listeners to BE ignorant and not research issues for themselves-

Hey I feel the same way about anyone who believes one word of the clap trap that comes out of Ted kennedy’d mouth. tongue.gif

As mentioned the term “Socialist” gets mixed up with “socialized”. Thus if we turn over health care to government control it will be “socialized”. Certainly no one can say this country is purely “capitalist”.


“United States Economy, all of the ways goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed by individuals and businesses in the United States. The U.S. economy is immense. In 2005 it included more than 295 million consumers and more than 20 million businesses. U.S. consumers purchase more than $6 trillion of goods and services annually, and businesses invest over a trillion dollars more for factories and equipment. In addition to spending by private households and businesses, government agencies at all levels (federal, state, and local) spend roughly an additional $2 trillion a year. In total, the annual value of all goods and services produced in the United States, known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was $12.5 trillion in 2005.”


Thus “government” = 15% of our immense 12.5 trillion $ economy.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_174150...es_Economy.html



http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap6.htm



And in fact we have a person who calls himself a “socialist” in the Congress – from Vermont.

The Senate has had plain speakers before, but it has never before had a politician who calls himself a socialist - not even a "democratic socialist," as Mr Sanders specifies.
But he clearly thinks Washington needs at least one, as he praises the achievements of Europe's social-democratic parties in health care, housing, education and reduction of child poverty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm


Only 15% makes us a capitalist society dude- you would have to have over 50% to even consider it a command economy, much less not even a 1/4 o f our economy. Considering the size and scope of our population, it is not bad at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Sep 25 2007, 06:51 PM
Post #10


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Vladamir
Left of center? The only democrat on this continent to her right, that I can see, is Holy Joe Lieberman


Well she now “appears” to be right of center but I am not sure that is for real. Certainly during her time as FL she was left of center as evidences by her plan for Universal Health Care.

QUOTE
CR
Only 15% makes us a capitalist society dude- you would have to have over 50% to even consider it a command economy, much less not even a 1/4 o f our economy. Considering the size and scope of our population, it is not bad at all.




I never said we were not but 15% government (at 12.5 trillion $$) would certainly scare the hell out of the founders.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lederuvdapac
post Sep 25 2007, 06:55 PM
Post #11


*********
Mr. Free Market

Sponsor
August 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 2,573
Joined: March-4-04

From: A New Yorker in DC
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?

I wouldn't characterize Clinton as a sure socialist. She is certainly a populist and I could probably make an argument for her to be labeled a social democrat. But socialists are of a different flavor. Its very difficult to talk about labels in the US in relation to the rest of the world since our labels are backwards. In the US, "Liberal" is a term used by groups who are social democrats, socialists, etc. Its a bastardization of the term. "Liberal" in actuality refers to classical liberalism. Also, "conservative" in the US means something different than in other places, such as Europe. I think the reason for this is that groups in the US are averse to being labeled "socialist" or "communist" while groups in Europe embrace the term. So hence we get odd terms like "progressive" that are used to label the modern liberal and social democrats.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Sep 25 2007, 10:00 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?
Hillary Clinton - a socialist??? laugh.gif I wish. Hillary Clinton is about as conservative as one can get and still just about consider oneself a Democrat. She's another freakin' Zionist hawk like the bulk of our "representatives". Damn - what would people like The Founders Intent do if they ever encountered a real socialist? w00t.gif

QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Sep 25 2007, 02:55 PM) *
Its very difficult to talk about labels in the US in relation to the rest of the world since our labels are backwards. In the US, "Liberal" is a term used by groups who are social democrats, socialists, etc. Its a bastardization of the term. "Liberal" in actuality refers to classical liberalism. Also, "conservative" in the US means something different than in other places, such as Europe. I think the reason for this is that groups in the US are averse to being labeled "socialist" or "communist" while groups in Europe embrace the term. So hence we get odd terms like "progressive" that are used to label the modern liberal and social democrats.

Sorry, leder, this is 2007, not 1807 - or even 1977. Rejecting the label "liberal" for liberals is like me claiming not to be gay because I'm not brightly colored. Language, like everything else in nature, evolves.

You wanna know what liberal means "in actuality"? Try the dictionary:
QUOTE(Dictionary.com)
lib·er·al [ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl] –adjective
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.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

QUOTE(American heritage Dictionary of the English :Language)
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) adj.
1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

And if you want a more "international" definition:
QUOTE(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
liberal adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform.

Too abbreviated? Okay, let's look at some more encyclopedic definitions:
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Or, if Wiki is too suspect:
QUOTE(Concise Encyclopedia Britannica)
Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government.

Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century. Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right. In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance. In the U.S. the New Deal program undertaken by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of governmental activities and its increased regulation of business. After World War II a further expansion of social welfare programs occurred in Britain, Scandinavia, and the U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S. Contemporary liberalism remains committed to social reform, including reducing inequality and expanding individual rights.

Gee - it looks as though the term has meant different things to different people at different times. Fancy that. Your points about classical liberalism would be all well and good in a History Debate, but not when discussing contemporary political positions. Or would they? I guess it depends on whether your sense of history predates Locke and Hobbes - or not. Let's look at the etymology:
QUOTE(Online Etymology Dictionary)
c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach.

It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

So if you want to get all pedantic with what "liberal" meant in one specific place and time, then let me get all pedantic right back: "liberal" simply means "free" - and people like John Stuart Mill bastardized the term beyond all recognition and people like Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman have continued to corrupt and misappropriate the term. That argument is, of course, as patently ridiculous as your own. You are looking at one usage, leder - the economic usage - as employed by a group of men in the early nineteenth century. Granted, that usage was dredged up - rather unsuccessfully as a term - by Milton Friedman types more recently, but that doesn't mean they own the word. The people who speak the language own the word, whether you or I like it or not.

At this point in history, here and abroad, "liberal" does mean progressive - and, as it meant to Edward Gibbon and a lot of other early nineteenth century thinkers, it still means "tolerant" and, in a political context, ""tending in favor of freedom and democracy" and "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions". Quibbling over what "liberal" may have meant to Adam Smith, had he ever used the term, is a pointless, worthless, and purely semantic side-track to any discussion of modern politics. Trotting out "classical liberalism" as though some sort of serious point were being made is getting really old. A serious point is not being made. In fact, it's an argument usually dragged into a debate by those who have no point - at least not a salient one.


Hillary Clinton is not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination (no matter what definition is used) - and, in my opinion, she's not much of a liberal either. And, by "liberal" I mean liberal as it is commonly used and understood by everyone - except a few nostalgic academics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lederuvdapac
post Sep 25 2007, 10:58 PM
Post #13


*********
Mr. Free Market

Sponsor
August 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 2,573
Joined: March-4-04

From: A New Yorker in DC
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Wertz)
Sorry, leder, this is 2007, not 1807 - or even 1977.


Gee, I always seem to forget this.

QUOTE(Wertz)
Rejecting the label "liberal" for liberals is like me claiming not to be gay because I'm not brightly colored. Language, like everything else in nature, evolves.


Language does evolve. "Liberalism" was hijacked. I do not see anything in the dictionary definitions you provided that counters my point, instead they enhance it. For instance, your quote from Concise Encyclopedia Britannica which shows how at one point liberalism meant one thing, and then it meant another thing. It didn't evolve, it changed meanings. Pre-industrial revolution/New Deal, liberalism meant the maximization of individual liberty and limited government interference in the economy. Post that era, liberalism meant big government intervention where today it means support for the welfare state. I am sorry Wertz, but a word doesn't evolve from one point and end up the complete opposite. It would be like saying the sky was blue at one point but that the word blue has evolved and blue is now the color of grass.

QUOTE(Wertz)
So if you want to get all pedantic with what "liberal" meant in one specific place and time, then let me get all pedantic right back: "liberal" simply means "free" - and people like John Stuart Mill bastardized the term beyond all recognition and people like Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman have continued to corrupt and misappropriate the term. That argument is, of course, as patently ridiculous as your own. You are looking at one usage, leder - the economic usage - as employed by a group of men in the early nineteenth century. Granted, that usage was dredged up - rather unsuccessfully as a term - by Milton Friedman types more recently, but that doesn't mean they own the word. The people who speak the language own the word, whether you or I like it or not.


I am not looking at liberalism through purely the economic usage. The political and social aspects of its usage are also taken into account. Limited government has now become big government. Whats economic about that? Thats why a "liberal" in Europe is still a person in support of free markets and limited government.


QUOTE(Wertz)
At this point in history, here and abroad, "liberal" does mean progressive - and, as it meant to Edward Gibbon and a lot of other early nineteenth century thinkers, it still means "tolerant" and, in a political context, ""tending in favor of freedom and democracy" and "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions". Quibbling over what "liberal" may have meant to Adam Smith, had he ever used the term, is a pointless, worthless, and purely semantic side-track to any discussion of modern politics. Trotting out "classical liberalism" as though some sort of serious point were being made is getting really old. A serious point is not being made. In fact, it's an argument usually dragged into a debate by those who have no point - at least not a salient one.


That is a very Amero-centric view and it disregards the entire history of liberalism as a political philosophy. Why don't we ask Hillary Clinton, the subject of this debate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

Hmm, seems to agree with my point, no?

But anyway, I would much like to continue this debate in the history forum and not derail this very poignant and important thread.

This post has been edited by lederuvdapac: Sep 25 2007, 11:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Sep 25 2007, 11:26 PM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



Well, far beyond me to say this but if one is to qualify actions based on use of tax money as socialism then our government including its current leadership is socialist. If by those actions people in general are to be labeled socialist then a great many Americans in one way or another are socialist. This would make just about any religion also socialist.

If per say we are to separate socialism away from American politicians doing things with tax money then Hillary is just like any other politician really. Even libertarian politicians have plans for tax money, or else how would our military exist for one example.

The problem I guess is how socialist, the word and meaning has taken on a role in today’s spin laden politics. I mean Hillary has to defend herself against being called or defined as a lesbian, its grade school politics at that point and quite a disgusting joke really. Next it will be what’s your favorite color, or who do you have a crush on cry.gif laugh.gif

Is Hillary Clinton a liberal? I don’t know, is bush a conservative or a neo con, or what actually does the individual do? I don’t know if its about health and fitness anymore or open intelligent debates based on factual representations of reality rather then emotional jargon that is typically highly relative and basically inert in coming to any real conclusions on something. For instance, what was the reality of the Petraeus talks? I mean what really occurred there, to me it just seemed like some hall of yelling chimps trying to find place or status amongst some ideology, rather then hey what’s the reality of Iraq. Its been more of the same with that sense overall. I guess you cant ignore the human element but it seems as if American politics stopped making any sense period. With the latest round of talks on the gravity of global warming where is the spotlight on that, will there be any? Probably not, its not global warming, its communism vs. the American eagle of liberty, which is an endangered species actually, the eagle that is, with a list that welcomed 200 new species and record low ice mass, who cares, its socialist! No, what it is really is pathetic, pointless babble that continues to dominate everything. Maybe its a product of how we patterned out culture, I don’t know, I do know it causes more problems then it solves really.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Sep 26 2007, 04:37 AM
Post #15


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Sep 25 2007, 06:58 PM) *
But anyway, I would much like to continue this debate in the history forum

Cool. That's exactly where your point belongs. As for the "Amero-centricism", I lived in Europe for nearly twenty years and didn't come across a single soul who seemed as confused about the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" as you are.

As to the Hillary Clinton clip, she makes much the same argument that I do:
QUOTE(Hillary Clinton)
It is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last thirty, forty years, it has been turned up on its head and made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

She's quite right. "Liberalism" does not now - and never did - mean "big government". That is simply a right-wing slur - and an assault on the language. "Liberal" did once mean "favoring individual freedom", standing against government interference in natural rights (indeed, it caught on in the nineteenth century primarily as a reform movement). Though Clinton is as incorrect in claiming that this was the "original" meaning of the word as you are in claiming that "in actuality" it refers solely and originally to "classical liberalism" - a definition that came along about five hundred years after the word entered the language.

The characterization of "liberal" meaning "big government", you're right, is not part of the word's evolution - it is a conservative construct. It is the right that has bastardized the term in the modern era. The evolution of the term from "pertaining to free men" to "free from prejudice" to "favoring individual freedom" to "favoring freedom and democracy" to "endorsing government action to effect social change" was organic and, dare I use the term, progressive. Using it as a pejorative to mean "favoring big government" is a bastardization - and an egregious misuse of the word.

Anyway, I'll see you in the History Debate forum - if I can spare the time for such trivialities. thumbsup.gif


This post has been edited by Wertz: Sep 26 2007, 05:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 26 2007, 06:20 AM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Hillary Clinton isn't a socialist. Neither is her husband. Chelsea might be, but I can't say with any certainty. But if she is what's considered a socialist these days, then what is Senator Bernie Sanders?

People who call Senator Clinton a socialist are just being intellectually lazy. They aren't basing that label on anything she's done or said. It's just their way of dumping on her without spending the time to do any research on what she really stands for or advocates.

Health care for all Americans isn't socialism. It's an idea that goes back decades. We just have vested interest groups, powerful lobbyists and bought-off politicians standing in the way of a common sense idea.

Clinton isn't a socialist. And she's not much of a liberal either. If she was, she'd admit her vote authorizing the war in Iraq was a mistake. But she hasn't so she's not.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Sep 26 2007, 06:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 12 2007, 08:46 PM
Post #17


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?

Let’s expose this for what it really is – a political smear. Hillary Clinton probably realizes, like most of us, that we have a mixed economy. Government does some things and the private sector does others.

Remember 2004? When it appeared that Howard Dean was the likely nominee, the right-wing noise machine told us he was another McGovern. When John Kerry got the nomination the Rove machine shifted gears branded him a “flip-flopper” and the Swift Boat Veterans convinced people that a genuine war hero was a villain and that someone, who used connections to drink and play (think Peter Pan) and avoid combat was a better choice.

Now that it looks like Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic nominee, the scare word “socialist” is being trotted out. If she fails and the nominee is Barak Obama, John Edwards, or perhaps Al Gore, these right-wing clowns will come up with a smear for them, too.

I apologize for the rank cynicism in this post, but cynics often touch the raw nerve of truth. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 12 2007, 08:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 12 2007, 10:29 PM
Post #18


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Is Senator Clinton a socialist?
Um, no. I wish she was marginally socialist in any way. To confuse conservatives, here's a Fox News column:

QUOTE(Hillary Offers Little Change to Bush's Policies)
Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government's ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing "decency" standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.

Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry's increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: "Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she's done nothing to suggest to the contrary."

What about secrecy and executive power? It's difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband's administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious "executive privilege" claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests — claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking. [...]

President Bush has recently had some nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, leading some to speculate that Bush sees her as the Eisenhower to his Truman — a candidate from the opposing party who criticizes his foreign policy during the campaign, but will likely pursue a very similar policy should she be elected.

As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's "right" to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superseded his authority in claiming. And it'll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn't good for our republic.

Neither is our overly interventionist foreign policy, or the continuing erosion of our civil liberties, be it in the name of "family values," government paternalism, the war on drugs, or the war on terror.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JamesEarl
post Oct 29 2007, 08:43 AM
Post #19


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 8,072
Joined: October-28-07

From: New Zealand (Christchurch)
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 24 2007, 05:55 PM) *
No she is IMO a center left Democrat who is trying hard (now that she is running) to look more conservative (for the independents she hopes to pick up) and more liberal for the left wing of the party as represented by MoveOn etc.


Nothing in her (or anyone else’s for that matter) position is Socialist. That said she, I am sure, supports increased “socialization” such as this health care for kids bill that is now been vetoed by GB.

This bill would have, if passed, effectively moved millions of “kids” (some 25 years old) from private to Federal insurance. I did not hear her condemn it.

As I have said before “real” Socialism is nearly dead in the world – RIP.



Hi Ted!

I was reading this entire post with some interest, but thought i would leave it for awhile until i actually join, but i wanted to ask you what "real socialism" entails?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 29 2007, 03:30 PM
Post #20


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(JamesEarl @ Oct 29 2007, 04:43 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 24 2007, 05:55 PM) *
No she is IMO a center left Democrat who is trying hard (now that she is running) to look more conservative (for the independents she hopes to pick up) and more liberal for the left wing of the party as represented by MoveOn etc.


Nothing in her (or anyone else’s for that matter) position is Socialist. That said she, I am sure, supports increased “socialization” such as this health care for kids bill that is now been vetoed by GB.

This bill would have, if passed, effectively moved millions of “kids” (some 25 years old) from private to Federal insurance. I did not hear her condemn it.

As I have said before “real” Socialism is nearly dead in the world – RIP.



Hi Ted!

I was reading this entire post with some interest, but thought i would leave it for awhile until i actually join, but i wanted to ask you what "real socialism" entails?


Hi James
Do I really have to tell you – it should be obvious sir.

“Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 16th, 2018 - 03:30 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.