balefire88

So, while writing my history paper on "Protest & Dissent in America", I came up with this idea on a generalization of American history.

The theory: "overall, Liberals have been mostly winning through out American History, atleast in the long term"

Ovearll, the political specturm has shifted (obviously this is hard to explicitly map out as issues and values change), but anyone who was a moderate in previous eras would possibly be considered an extremist right-wing nut today.

When it comes to major issues, it seems that liberals have continually won or are winning the major battles. Some of the battles they've won include slavery, segregation, seperation of church and state (at most we have state supported charities through Bush), abortion (though this one is the closest to possibly going the other way, liberals are ahead for now), social security/welfare/medicaid (though these might be doomed programs from the way they are built), death penalty.

Disclaimer: This might seem like liberal gloating, but its not. I'm conservative on, to menation a couple of issues, taxes, and am personally against late-term abortions unless rape/mother's life in danger (but I don't want to tell others what to do with their pregnancies as well).

Also, the libertarian section of the conservative wing has, to my limited understanding, been winners in terms of personal freedoms.

Willravel

You mean liberal and conservative in the traditional sense, right (conservative = conservative, liberal = liberal)? Not in the recent sense (liberal = democrat, conservative = republican)? If so, then I'd say it's a bit of a generalization. There are many places where the conservatives have clearly taken from the liberals. One example: conservatives are traditionally pro death penalty. We still have a death penalty.

balefire88

Yeah, it is a generalization. That's why I said overall, but I should have explicitly stated that it was a generalization. I should not have put in death penalty without an explantion, but isn't the use of the death penalty on the decline in general? Not only that, I always thought of not executing, for example, the mentally retarded and the under 18 group, as a liberal sentiment. Could be wrong about this though. If I'm right, then I'd say the liberals are actually turning the tide in this battle as well.

The mistake I made was including current issues, since they're not fully decided on. People are still fighting the good fight, so it would just enrage people if I were to say the liberals won. I just think they're winning in the long term. As for other past issues they've won that I just thought of: United Nations, right to vote for all, and union laws.

Ustwo

So what you are saying is that with time things change and that makes it a liberal victory?

Times and social morals and values change, its not a victory or a defeat, and they will change again.

By default the 'conservative' side will always 'loose' because again times change, using the traditional definitions, and therefore your entire post is basically stating the obvious.

In terms of current political philosphies of 'conservative vrs liberal' its wrong of course.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Poppinjay

But pre-paid conservative like John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh all proclaim with absolute certainty that liberals are running amok and changing everything in this country, and that they've killed both Christmas and Outrage.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

balefire88

Tell MLK Jr. that he did not win against conservative ideals. Tell liberals advocating programs of fair housing, against which "conservative" Goldwater said that it was not right to force people who did not want to live together to do so, are not victorious today. Tell Susan B. Anthony that her liberal ideas of enfranchising women was not victorious. Tell Woodrow Wilson that his idea of a League of Nations does not live in the United Nations today, something conservatives felt would take over the US during the Communist scare of the 50s.

Yes, my theory is, overall, liberal ideas have come out victorious through out American history much more than their conservative counterparts. Show me an equal number of examples of conservative ideas that have held up through the same eras. In terms of current political philosophies, I can't be sure that extrapolation for the future using the theory would be accurate.

The_Jazz

There's a line in The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn that throughout history wars where a country emerges victorious end up causing a more conservative society afterwards. A defeat ends up with a more liberal society. There's also a theory that a war is inevitable for every generation since we forget how bad the experience actually is.

Given this topic, I think that there's a lot to be said about these theories. I'm not saying that a victory necessarily means a generation of conservatism, although it's possible, but I think if you look at American history, you can see the ebb and flow of conservatism and liberality are remarkably similar to our politics. For instance, WWI ended, and we basically cut off most ties with Europe and sank into isolationism and Prohibition. The post WWII era was full of McCarthyism. Vietnam was it's own mess with the associated hippy movement. And despite Clinton's win after Gulf I, the early 90's was the rise of the American right as a real power. I could go back farther in time, but I think my point is made.

There are lots of counter-examples and certainly not a perfect theory, but I think it makes an interesting addition to this discussion.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ratbastid

Well... He didn't. He came out of the dugout, pointed over the left-field wall, and hit a very respectable double. Tragically, he was taken out of the game before his next turn at bat. But the game's not over, and won't be for decades, if it ever is. But, he knew that would happen, too. I don't think he'd look at the current state of affairs in race relations--improved though they unquestionably are since his day--and say he "won".

Nonetheless, I generally agree with the OP notion that, over time, things get more liberal. Times change toward the permissive. That certainly seems to be the case.

I'd say that the most strict definition of "conservative" means something like "preserving the status quo, or the state of things in an idealized past time." By definition, as the times change as they inevitably do, that attitude loses.

This is not to say that there aren't current-day "conservatives" who are very in tune with the world as it is now, and operate very clearly inside the current state of affairs.

politicophile

The first order of business is to decide how to define liberal and conservative. There seem to be two good ways of doing this. The first is to discuss the liberal and conservative parties: the Republicans and the Democrats.

Under this conception, the results have been decidedly mixed. The Democrats' greatest victory was the New Deal, which revolutionized the way government provides substantive benefits for its citizens. Democrats also are winning the battle to legalize abortion, although it should be noted that many Republicans are pro-choice. Finally, it appears as though Democrats will succeed in greatly increasing the rights of homosexuals, perhaps even to the point of allowing them to marry.

On the other side, the Republicans' most lasting impact on the country was their work in abolishing slavery against an entrenched Democratic party willing to break the United States in half rather than give blacks their freedom. Additionally, Republicans have rolled back the 70% income tax bracket to a more reasonable 33% (I think that's the current figure...). The death penalty was declared unconstitutional for a mere four years before the Supreme Court reversed itself. A Democratic President of the 1990's announced that, "The era of big government is over."

Big victories on both sides, I daresay. But, some will respond, the parties have changed their ideologies so many times over the years that using parties to represent liberal and conservative is pointless. In response, consider the following definitions:

Classical liberal: the government should reduce regulation of both social and economic activity.

Classical conservative: the government should increase regulation of both social and economic activity.

By these definitions, the classical liberals have scored great victories in terms of freedom of speech. The amount of things protected by the first amendment has grown considerably. Additionally, racial, sexual, and monetary regulations on voting have been abolished, allowing virtually any adult in our society to exercise the franchise. Recently, the tax burden has been reduced, another liberal goal.

On the conservative side, the New Deal greatly increased regulation of virtually everything in the economic sphere, from taxes to retirement to banking practices. Minimum wage laws have taken away the individual's "choice" to live in perpetual extreme poverty. The Supreme Court has resisted efforts to be made more democratic (directly elected, e.g.).

On this score, it looks as though classical liberals have by and large won the culture war, although not as decisively as some might think. It is certainly fair to say that the United States become SIGNIFICANTLY more conservative from 1920 to 1937. We went from a society that valued individual freedom and choice more than anything else to one that deprives citizens of choice in order to benefit them. If you don't believe me, try telling the government that you don't want to receive social security benefits and want to stop paying into the system.

Fundamentally, my point is that your statement has little basis in fact. Republicans and Democrats have both enjoyed major victories over the years. Alternatively, although the country has become more liberal since the Founding, the New Deal was a giant leap towards conservativism.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Ustwo

I'm going to have to quote that in the future to confuse my liberal (socialist) friends

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

balefire88

Linking liberal and conservative issues in terms of Republican and Democratic parties is wrong, and I did no such thing. Before the Civil War, the Republicans were the party of emancipation, and the Democrats were the party of the South, i.e. pro-slavery. So, incredibly, the Republican party was the "liberal" party and the "Democrats" were the conservative party. When civil rights came around, black voters shifted sides as the Democratic party came out as the "liberal" party in favor of civil rights, and the Republican "party" was more for gradual economic and social change, the more "conservative" ideal here.

The New Deal as "conservative" legislation? I'm pretty sure that's just an incredibly incorrect statement. Conservatism was better seen in the policies of "laissez-faire" (spelling check?), and FDR's policies were an incredible stepf forward for liberal thinking brought about by a reaction to the Great Depression and the prevalent feeling that the Republican party was the party of "cold, uncaring bankers." Unfortunately for Hoover, who was actually quite sympathetic to the people, he could not change this image and did not have the personality that FDR had.

Your definitions are just completely wrong. Conservatives generally blelive in small government which does not regulate the economy, but socially they have been a bit ambiguous. Libertarians look for the government to be small and not to interfere with local decisions, while evangelicals have looked for the government to step in for decisions on morality, such as sex-education in schools, though even they would prefer it be handled locally.

Liberals today tend to believe in free-market economics as well but they do want governemnt to make sure the consumer is protected against big business, and to make sure class gap is not widended. Socially, they want freedom, but are not afraid of making sure government has the power to guarantee that there is freedom.


As a complete joke, I demand you change your Reagan icon to a FDR icon so as to show your newfound conservative love.

balefire88

Sigh. This is what happens when I try to rewrite my post several times so as to make as coherent an argument as possible, and in doing so, leave out something I originally wrote. I mentioned MLK Jr.'s victory in civil rights, but I deleted, by mistake, my qualifier that there was much left to be done.

"Scholars tend to be disappointed that the civil rights movement did not succeed more. It did not make all white southerners renounce their racism—desegregate their hearts—or give up their economic privileges. […] the civil rights activists […] had larger goals in mind than mere destruction of legal segregation and legal disfranchisement. But living as they did in human history, the activists, like the Apostles, recognized they were lucky—blessed—to achieve anything at all in the little time they had left in a world ruled by sinners."
-- David Chappell, "A Stone of Hope : Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow"

Basically, Chappell believes that many of the religious black civil rights activists like MLK Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and others followed a prophetic tradition, where they could no longer count on gradual change, but must force change to happen in a sinner's world. They chose non-violence as their vehicle, and I agree with him and ratbastid that although they would still look to do more, they would also pride themselves on what they had accomplished. Perhaps they would not be content, for that may cause them to stop pushing farther ahead, but they woudl understand and appreciate the great changes they helped bring about.

balefire88

That's a really interesting theory. I've read other works by him, but not "Gulag Archipalego". I think I'll add it to the summer reading list. Can you show me some counter-examples? Also, any thoughts on why this happens?

Ustwo

bale - I'm as close to a neocon as you you find on TFP and by the classical definition I'm quite liberal. It is you who need to work on the definitions. A conservative in current American politics believes in a non-regulated economy but that doesn't make them conservative in the traditional sense. Also I find your 'definition' what liberals believe in quite amusing

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

politicophile

I would really like to know why you find it obvious that slavery is conservative and emancipation is liberal. I'm sorry, but slavery simply isn't a left-right issue.... unless you believe liberal vs. conservative is equivalent to good vs. evil.

Here you seem to be saying that Republicans, who called themselves "conservatives", opposed the New Deal. This is taken by you as evidence that opposing the New Deal is the conservative thing to do. Conversely, since the "liberal" party favored it, the New Deal must be liberal. However, as we already agreed, party alignment does not always track ideological committment.

That's interesting. Your definitions of liberal and conservative seem to be nothing more than descriptions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. But, as you said earlier, "Linking liberal and conservative issues in terms of Republican and Democratic parties is wrong": the mere fact that a Republican believes something does not make that belief conservative, nor do all Democratic beliefs merit the label "liberal".

Here are my definitions of liberalism and conservatism, from Wikipedia and Radical Academy:

NOTE: Wikipedia's entry for classical liberalism contains a disclaimer that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. I read the part quoted above carefully and believe in its accuracy. Also, Wiki's article on conservatism does a very poor job of defining classical conservatism. The definition I included here is not especially good, in part because I got it from a leftist website that despises the philosophy.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

balefire88

Feel free to define them yourself. I looked up neoconservative on wikipedia, and it seemd to say you are supposed to be against big governemtn spending, and hawking on foreign policy issues. Are you liberal on social issues? If you are, then I dont think you fit with the general band of conservatives. That's why you have a different label?

I stand by my definitions. They apply (in a very broad sense of course, which is why I went on to define libertarians and evangelicals, the major coalition that helped Reagan get elected, and helped Gold water secure a nomination, to show that the definitions can't account for everyone) to the conservative movement as I've seen it from the 30's until perhaps more recently.

balefire88

So slavery was a good vs. evil dispute. Can't fault that. And I don't fault conservatives of today for wanting to disassociate with slavery. Obviously, you don't believe in it, and neither do I. My understanding has always been that those who opposed slavery were the liberal thinkers of those days, and the socially conservative thinkers, especially in the South, were against abolishing slavery. There were many other factors involved, including but not limited to: States' rights vs. Federal government, urbanization vs. plantation economy, and in some ways, white vs. black. So, again, in summary, slavery isn't conservative, but conservative thinkers were more likely in those days to support it, and liberal thinkers were more likely to fight it. Now, I'm actually not that confident about this assertion, so forgive me.



In the 1920s, conservative thinkers championed lassiez-faire, where as, in the aftermath of the Russian revoltuion, liberalism was more openly linked with "collectivism". The New Deal was a shift toward more governemtn programs and more liberal thinking. FDR was a liberal. Championing woman worker rights was a liberal thing to do, and FDR and Elanor Roosevelt both did so (ref: A Common Sense and a Little Fire--Annalise Orleck). This actually proves that the party system has nothign to do with it. The Republican party championed the more liberal cause of anti-slavery in the 1860s, the Democratic party championed the more liberal cause of taking care of the lower class and workers in the 1930s. Since then, they've continued as the more liberal party, but again, I'm makign a theory on liberalism, not the parties themselves.


Quotes from wikipedia:

1)Over the past three centuries, "liberalism" and "conservatism" have in some ways exchanged positions. It was liberalism that objected to the then status quo — tyrannical monarchies — in 18th and 19th century Europe. Liberals espoused the importance of individual rights relative to the government. As more democratic governments have succeeded overall in replacing monarchies and dictatorships, it is the conservatives who have become the champions of individual rights versus intrusions into the private sector by big government.

2)Two old words now took on new meaning. "Liberal" no longer referred to classical liberalism but now meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent. (From the article ont the New Deal)


Conservatives now (in this century especially) are in favor of small government. Now look, we are making broad generalizations. There are tons of distinctions in the two movements, there are subgroups and sometimes endless contradictions. The point remains, that I am not defining the two parties. Why would I call the 1860s Republican party liberal and the 1930s Republican party conservative?

Seriously, if you think the New Deal was a "conservative" victory, because the classical definition says so, then sure, you are correct. But you are also living in the wrong century.

balefire88

So slavery was a good vs. evil dispute. Can't fault that. And I don't fault conservatives of today for wanting to disassociate with slavery. Obviously, you don't believe in it, and neither do I. My understanding has always been that those who opposed slavery were the liberal thinkers of those days, and the socially conservative thinkers, especially in the South, were against abolishing slavery. There were many other factors involved, including but not limited to: States' rights vs. Federal government, urbanization vs. plantation economy, and in some ways, white vs. black. So, again, in summary, slavery isn't conservative, but conservative thinkers were more likely in those days to support it, and liberal thinkers were more likely to fight it. Now, I'm actually not that confident about this assertion, so forgive me.


In the 1920s, conservative thinkers championed lassiez-faire, where as, in the aftermath of the Russian revoltuion, liberalism was more openly linked with "collectivism". The New Deal was a shift toward more governemtn programs and more liberal thinking. FDR was a liberal. Championing woman worker rights was a liberal thing to do, and FDR and Elanor Roosevelt both did so (ref: A Common Sense and a Little Fire--Annalise Orleck). This actually proves that the party system has nothign to do with it. The Republican party championed the more liberal cause of anti-slavery in the 1860s, the Democratic party championed the more liberal cause of taking care of the lower class and workers in the 1930s. Since then, they've continued as the more liberal party, but again, I'm makign a theory on liberalism, not the parties themselves.


Quotes from wikipedia:

1)Over the past three centuries, "liberalism" and "conservatism" have in some ways exchanged positions. It was liberalism that objected to the then status quo — tyrannical monarchies — in 18th and 19th century Europe. Liberals espoused the importance of individual rights relative to the government. As more democratic governments have succeeded overall in replacing monarchies and dictatorships, it is the conservatives who have become the champions of individual rights versus intrusions into the private sector by big government.

2)Two old words now took on new meaning. "Liberal" no longer referred to classical liberalism but now meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent. (From the article ont the New Deal)


Conservatives now (in this century especially) are in favor of small government. Now look, we are making broad generalizations. There are tons of distinctions in the two movements, there are subgroups and sometimes endless contradictions. The point remains, that I am not defining the two parties. Why would I call the 1860s Republican party liberal and the 1930s Republican party conservative?

Seriously, if you think the New Deal was a "conservative" victory, because the classical definition says so, then sure, you are correct. But you are also living in the wrong century.

politicophile

I really don't understand what you mean when you say that your "understanding" of liberal and conservative implies that slavery is conservative and emancipation is liberal. Are you working from some kind of established definitions of liberal and conservative? If so, what are they and how do they show slavery to be "conservative"?

Again, what definition of liberal are you using here? It seems to be heavily related to people's self-perception and self-application of the label, which would make your assertions somewhat trivial.

So, you admit that the definition of "liberal" has changed essentially completely from what it used to be. Yet, if you remember your original post:

How is it even possible for "liberals" to win "through out (sic) American History" if "liberal" means something completely different from what it meant towards the beginning of American history?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

balefire88

Wikipedia quote: (on Civil War)

While conservatives and many moderates were content merely to call for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise or a prohibition of slavery extension, radicals advocated repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws and rapid abolition in existing states. The term "radical" has also been applied to those who objected to the Compromise of 1850, which extended slavery in the territories.

So yeah, I'm somewhat off on this. I unforuntatley am not as well read on history books concerning the Civil war, so I can't offer quotes from other sourches as I have for other arguments. So, I guess I would like to equate radical wiht liberal, but you woudl not. I won't do it unless I find a better source, so I'll go ahead and say that since the conservatives were on one side that wanted to prevent Civil War by allowing less stringent measures for the abolition of slavery, "radicals" (or hopefully since we have liberals vs. conservatives, I can call this liberals later with proof) were more for the immediate abolition of slavery.

I'm sorry, I'm not a liberal from the 1930s so I'm not applying said label to myself. And most historians who label the New Deal as a liberal program are proabably not referring to themselves either, and the 20s are referred to as a period of conservatism. I provided with you with a quote of how supporting the New Deal was liberalism.

I'm using the defintion found in most history texts and analysis of the 1920s' up to WWII. If you don't like the definition, feel free to rewrite it. I'm gonna stick to the one that most historians use.


[/QUOTE]

Because when we look back in retrospect, while studying history, we apply the labels conservative and liberal to different sides of a debate/movement/event. My contention is that the sides that have been given the liberal tag, not by me, but by most historians have come out generally with the upper hand. Therefore society has moved in a generally liberal current. (although this means that it has changed directions) I mentioned in an earlier post that obviously today's conservatives woudl be looked upon as liberals in other days, and perhaps the 1930s liberals would be considered today's moderates. So yes, today's liberals have won nothing. And today's conservatives have lost nothing. THat is because, 50 years from now historians will look back and attach identifiers to the different groups because they have hindsight. And if I am still alive, I will look back, try to understand the groups, add it to my theory, or I will bury my theory because it failed.

ubertuber

Sooo..... Liberal and conservative aren't really useful labels anymore, because people hardly ever understand what someone means when they use them. I think we've found that out over and over here.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

balefire88

Uber wins the thread. J/k. Yeah, I think the theory was interesting to try out, but overall, I think its got holes the size of the pacific ocean that can be poked through it.

I did learn a couple of things though. I did not know that the definitions of liberals and conservatives switched around that much, or that they were almost diametrically opposite from what they get most associated with now.

Sorry if I pissed off any conservatives today. :-)

__________________
"Today is the beginning of the rest of your life."

Tusko