Liberal vs. Democrat in the U.S.A.

by OnTheWayOut 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Okay, just going to have a say here. It seems that many believe that a liberal in the USA must be a Democrat, pretty much following the party core teachings and some even think it means approving the party history of, during the 19th century, supporting or tolerated slavery and opposing civil rights reforms after the Civil War. Some even insist that a liberal loves anything and everything Obama did.

  BALDERDASH!!

  People are people and they don't typically fit nicely into broad categories.

  If a liberal voted for Hilary Clinton, it could have been an anti-Trump vote, and vise-versa. They may not have liked "their" candidate so much as they hated giving Supreme Court nominee powers to someone with a very different ideology, or some other things may have influenced them. Or, like enough liberals apparently did, they may have refrained from voting or voted third party because "Hilary sucks" as a choice.

  On and on it goes. To say that someone supports the 200+ years of history of the party by voting for its candidate is silly also. It reminds me of Watchtower yelling "Pagan" at anything they want members to stay away from like birthday cake.

  Alright, I stirred it up. I said my piece.
• 

  Simon

  I think the confusion is whether the word "liberal" is being used to mean someone who just calls themselves "liberal" as a less-partisan sounding way of saying "democrat", which many do even though they are completely intolerant and illiberal or whether you're talking about people who are truly "liberal" in outlook (which could equally mean they are republican or independent. Personally, when someone says they are liberal then if the context is the true meaning of the word and not political, I rarely think that means they are Democrat as it's becoming an oxymoron.

  Also, I don't think someone voting democrat today automatically supports the 200 year history of their racism, but it also doesn't mean they get to label other people racist and pretend that their party doesn't have that history or, even worse, ascribe all of their parties poisonous past to the republicans.

  "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth" seems to be an approach to bury the past. It's probably why a sizeable number of people think Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.

  
  

  
  

  Accurate history matters. Beware those who want to re-write it.
• 

  humbled

  Good try OTWO.

  I wish there were a way to talk about issues without someone checking to see your political card, your “team”.

  I don’t wear a football jersey when l just want to punt an idea around with others on the forum.
• 

  redvip2000

  To say that someone supports the 200+ years of history of the party by voting for its candidate is silly also.

  Yes, and in fact, the only thing that makes sense, is for people to vote regardless of political parties, and start voting based on individual character, competency and position on issues. This is what would happen if the majority of voters had half a brain, which as we know, they don't.

  Now, i've said this before, the creation of political parties and the willingness to affiliate with one, it the greatest impediment to progress and unity in this country especially.

  I would be thoroughly embarrassed to belong to a political party and as far as i'm concerned if anybody belongs to one, they are idiots.
• 

  never a jw

  History is important, but irrelevant when it comes to present facts. Help me here those who know better, but I feel that racism is not necessarily attached to the political party, it's more likely it to be attached to the individual or the tribe. More specifically, the proslavery South was Democrat until recently, now is Republican. Am I supposed to believe that Southerners have become enlightened by switching parties. I don't think so. Racist views remain for generations and have very little to do with Democrat or Republican labels. That's not to say that all Southerners, or even most Southerners are racist. They just tend to be above average when compared to other states.
  
• 

  humbled

  People are people and they don't typically fit nicely into broad categories.—OTWO

  Well, your thread is still right-side up, OTWO. Your reminder above is necessary for respectful give-and- take.

  More specifically, the proslavery South was Democrat until recently, now is Republican. Am I supposed to believe that Southerners have become enlightened by switching parties. I don't think so. Racist views remain for generations and have very little to do with Democrat or Republican labels.—neverajw

  good point

  the only thing that makes sense, is for people to vote regardless of political parties, and start voting based on individual character, competency and position on issues.—redvip

  I wish.
  
• 

  minimus

  There are liberals and there are liberals! Some present ideas that make you think. Other type though, is crazy moonbat snowflake types—-the types you TYPICALLY SEE lately.
• 

  Bad_Wolf

  It seems that many believe that a liberal in the USA must be a Democrat, pretty much following the party core teachings and some even think it means approving the party history of

  Almost how many liberals and democrats claim that if somebody is a republican/conservative then they are nazis because nazi groups voted trump. Or that if voting Trump, then you think he is a great person and agree with EVERYTHING he has said and done. Or Republicans/voters are racist? Also during the elections and after, I can't tell you how many social media friends I saw posting "if you voted Trump delete me", etc.
  
  I agree with your post, there can be many reasons someone votes one way, or just based on a few issues that were more important to them.

  And to the person who said it's dumb to belong to a politcal party if don't agree with everything about it. That's a good way to get nothing accomplished. If everybody in a political party wanted a change, then the party would make the change. More Republicans are starting to support legalization of pot. If all were opposed they would not, but if they see a big mindset change among them on that, then it changes.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Simon, I hate the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They divide the US and polarize people. Each party is so loaded with a rich history of some types of bigotry and prejudices. I am often a fiscal conservative and believe in responsible gun ownership. (But to be fair to my liberal side, I believe in gun permits and required training and strict enforcement of gun laws upon criminals.) I think that spending so much effort attacking the politics of those that disagree on these things fits right into their agendas. Both the Democrats and the Republicans steal us blind because we are arguing over far right and left issues and don't remove the policies that make them richer in office.
  
  I am a liberal in the sense that government can be used to solve many problems. I am not going to debate them one-by-one, but I feel the need for an Environmental Protection Agency, a Food and Drug Administration and other protective agencies- granted, they need to be adjusted as any bureaucracy departments would need be.
  
  But the greed of the wealthy would overrun the little guys without governmental protections. Without governmental protections, homosexuals would mostly all be hanged as they used to hang African Americans. People would work under unsafe conditions and get laid off when they got hurt because of those same conditions.
  
  I believe in socialist policies on schools and healthcare and an equalizing in both areas.
  
  I get that such things have to be paid for and that might mean that people do with less. I am not opposed to people paying with their own dime for extra education and healthcare above and beyond a reasonable standard for all. I believe every American should get the benefits that Congress votes for itself. I doubt we would all be able to get what they get now, so they would probably get less and have to pay more of their own for more.
  
  To be fair to those that say such things will make people lazy, I believe that all should be working. If you receive government benefits as far as housing and food subsidies go, the government will find suitable work for you. If you don't like it, you are welcome to go out on your own.
  
  Socialism has not worked in the world because true socialism has not existed. In current socialisms, some people are more "equal" than others.
  
  Mainly, I am a liberal because I believe that laws and budgets should put people first. But I don't support abolishing the death penalty and I do believe that Affirmative Action should be phased out in the workplace and replaced with leveling the playing field at the school level.
  
• 

  jp1692

  OTWO, Nice try. Too bad it’ll likely fall on mostly deaf ears.

  You are attempting to have a nuanced discussion about shades of gray with people that can only see things in black and white, or to be more politically accurate: red and blue.

  As if there are no other colors ...

  Forget reasoned debate; let’s just reduce it all down to emotionally charged-slogans and catch-phrases:

  • less-partisan
  • completely intolerant
  • oxymoron
  • racism
  • racist
  • pretend
  • poisonous past

  Loaded language is the tool of choice of propagandists and yellow journalism. They are effective because they stop us from thinking—unless we know the game. If we know the game, then we can avoid the trap.

  Clear, dispassionate thinking avoids being unduly influenced by such biased words in favor at factual, balanced discourse.

  This is of course much more difficult—which is why most people avoid it—but it is much more productive and always yields better results in the long run.

  It takes incredible courage and personal integrity to respond to these difficult issues with thoughtful and reasoned responses. It’s just so much easier to give knee-jerk responses and degenerate into juvenile name-calling. No critical-thinking involved.

  That being said, I do believe that many of us here on this forum do aspire to more thoughtful, rigorous discourse. But we must acknowledge this singularly uncomfortable fact: we were never taught how to think or how to take a breath and make a thoughtful and reasoned response.

  But that’s no excuse: It’s not too late to learn how to think!

  Now’s the time.