I’m rereading one of my favorite books. I came across this passage that rang so true.
“Safaris through ancestral memories teach me many things. The patterns, ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones that trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It’s true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it’s that patterns get repeated. My oppressions, by and large, are no worse than any of the others and, at least, I teach a new lesson.”
Can anyone guess the leader that spoke these words?
But I would advise you to chill out and not worry so much. We survived the oppressive aristocratic Clinton years and moved on to the small and limited government, power to the people Bush years.
Ha! I was going to say let’s revisit that quote in four years and see how it’s holding up. But my guess would be that the quote is from someone like Lenin (no, not Lennon).
it is funny to consider that “liberal” rings like an insult going through the whole political spectrum depending on the country where you hear it.
as if people were afraid of the word itself! what is so menacing about it?
As with all political words, they have been misconstrued by both sides. Those who call themselves liberals don’t act like liberals in the true definition of the word, so that confuses everyone.
Those who are actually liberal, like myself, have to use the term classical liberal, or use a different term altogether, like libertarian.
This could (in other words, there is a remote possibilty) make for an interesting discussion. On the other hand, it could result in steaming pile of excremental ignorance. But I will take a stab.
I have attempted to have this discussion in various religious circles over the past few months, mainly with people who insist they are certain who Jesus would endorse for president.
But as I see it, Jesus was far too liberal to be a conservative, far too conservative to be a liberal, and far too extreme to be a moderate.
I will refrain from bringing out the Bible verses until I see where the discussion goes.
I am pretty sure I saw him protesting prop 8 (but it could have been Gild in a bad wig)
I appreciate your response, but I’d like to keep this accurate from the start: whether jesus was a liberal and what kind of liberal He was has little or nothing to do with the worldly political process.
Jesus would not get involved in the political process. He would not demonstrate that kind of attachment to worldly affairs since He was concerned with another world altogether.
Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s.
I am chilled out. All the important things in life; family, friends, inner peace and joy aren’t really effected, at least not at this time.
Anyone who thinks the Obama administation will be a “peoples” government will have a reality call. Not that I believe Obama has any real power.
It’s not that I think the Republican party is any solution either (maybe a slightly slower vehicle). I believe American politics is heading steadily in the direction of socialism and robbing it’s people of liberty.
I believe the founders of this nation would be appalled by the massive government intervention into the minutiae of every aspect of American life were they to come witness the state of this union.
It’s just sad that Americans so freely give up their freedoms. Watching the acceptance of the immense government intervention is astounding.
It looks as though the Obama administation will come in with it’s “mandates” for “change” and “reform” and impliment more and more government intervention and control.
Again I want to state that in no way do I feel the “republican” party is the answer.
It’s very sad to see the dissolution of this nation founded on freedom deteriorate into a nation mired by over-reaching goverment control.
sounds strange: if I say “macho” people boast to fight for themselves I would be taxed of using “names” in a magical way.
As in “liberal” this looks like:
“governement intervention equals (socialism) equals (bad)” … why don’t you use “heretic” to tag and thus demonise?
I just hope you don’t generalise up to “governement promotes law … ergo law is against liberty!” (in fact I am pretty sure you want to be more specific so be more specific please: I am an alien with different experiences and perceptions so I do not understand those generalisations you have in mind).
I do speak from my limited “American” experience. I assume many people live in socialist counties and are reasonably happy with that.
But here in America the federal government was put here to defend us from attack by foreigners and protect our constitutional rights. So to impose anything further than that = bad = todays democrats = todays republicans. I would go so far as to say the federal government is outlaw in much or even most of what it does. And they are very good at what they do. So much of the population just goes along and even embraces.
Obama and his bunch will speed us along on the seemingly inevitable path that is contrary to how this nation was founded. (McCain would have meandered down the same path)
Mobile Oppression Palace
From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
The Mobile Oppression Palace was a creation of the enslaved human race after the interplantary incident created by Dr. Zoidberg on Freedom Day in 3002. He sought sanctuary at the Decapodian Embassy. The Decapodians were so outraged, they sent a fleet of ships and enslaved all of Earth. Using mankind as slave labour, they managed to build the Mobile Oppression Palace. This seemed certain to cement their grip on Earth, but Zoidberg had a change of heart at the last minute and helped destroy the Palace.
I am impressed … (though I still don’t understand the exact reasons of your diffidence … but after all it is your experience)…
Never thought of emigrating ? for the moment there are still happy places with minimum government : somaliland and puntland are places of minimum government interference and full of opportunities for self-supporting citizens.
I am a little confused. Not all freedoms are good ones. I for one am happy that i live in country that does not allow its citizens to own automatic or semi automatic weapons, and am also glad that there is a government run healthcare system that provides a basic level of care for all citizens. I consider the freedoms we sacrifice to be part of a nation state as nessesary and, in the case of Australia at least, for the greater good.
Now i understand that in the US the situation might be considerably different. For example, the wire tapping of citizens without a warrant is a invasion of privacy and puts the government on a slippery slope for civil liberties. I do not know, however, how you go from that to a position where any action on the part of the government to provide for it’s citizens is considered as a clamping down on liberties. PDC if you could let me in on your reasoning it would help me understand your point more comprehensively.
What liberties do you see at risk due to the new incomming administration? I for one am glad that there may be a chance now for consideration and patience to work its magic in the field of international politics but don’t know that much about american thoughts on the domestic changes the country might see.
yes harper that is right. It is also right that i could die in a car crash any day i get behind the wheel, but that does not stop me from driving cars. Bit of a clunky analogy i know but what is the point of your post apart from pointng out the obvious? or was there sarcasm that i didn’t pick up on. Yes governments can take away our freedoms, it is our job to kick up a stink when we feel that is happening and unacceptable. Is your proposal for ensuring our liberties the complete lack of government? Could be a interesting modern application of survival of the fittest. I know what i would prefer. How about you?
Mark
