What is Liberal?

I reaad 1984 in high school. It is a pretty good book -- I highly recommend it. What I found especially fascinating is the idea of the control of ideas through the control of language. Reading 1984 ended up giving me a new way of listening to the political speeches during the political campaigns, as well as reading the "conventional wisdom" that is presented in the news media.

quote:

---

Well, presumably the Constitution MEANT something which means it had lasting value as written.

---

Well, the Constitution didn't have lasting value as it was written. And this isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the framers themselves. Read what they said about the Constitution.The Constitution was not some sacred document put onto paper by a group of prophets, nor was it a set of "timeless principles" produced by a set of brilliant political theorists, whatever the current myth says -- the Constitution was a set of political compromises by various political factions that were trying to reach a consensus. This is not disparaging -- compromises made in good faith can be brilliant solutions for the problems at that particular time, but compromises do not have "lasting value".And the framers understood this. They didn't feel that the Constitution they produced was all that fantastic. They felt it was an acceptable starting point, but that it would need to be rewritten when all the bugs became apparent. And they were quite vocal that they felt that each generation will have its own set of circumstances, and that each generation will have its own problems, and so each generation will have to write its own constitution.And the framers were right. The political history of the early republic was one constitutional crisis after another, culminating in the Civil War. The original Constitution of 1786 did not have "lasting value" -- it was insufficient to adequately provide for the governing of the nation as it developed. It needed to be amended and rewritten.And it was rewritten and amended. Unfortunately, not in the way the framers intended. It was be amended and rewritten through interpretation, sometimes by the Supreme Court, and sometimes by consensus of the political actors. I don't like this any more than you do -- I don't like living under a Talmudic government, where we have this sacred document that is interpreted by nine rabbis in black robes. I would much prefer if the citizens took responsibility for their government and amended the Contitution, and even periodically called for a constitutional convention, in order to keep the Constitution up-to-date. But unfortunately, the method of keeping it up-to-date accepted by the majority of this nation seems to be leaving it in the hands of the politicians.

Your comment in this post doesn't seem to help much in this regard.Why don't you make an attempt at clarifying your viewpoint in a rational way? Why is abortion wrong? More to the point, how is it that you determine that a fetus is a human being, having the same rights as you or I?

Well, it does appear that we do agree on something.However, the point I was making was in response to your claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. My point is that even if the founding fathers did intend the US to be a Christian nation, and even if they intended the US to be a Christian nation in perpetuity, their own ideology absolves us, today in the 21st century, of any obligation to follow their intentions.

I admit that I don't like "pro-choice" any more than I like "pro-life" (even though I will often use both terms). They are euphemisms, and I tend to distrust eupemisms.

Well, "pro-abortion" would describe me pretty well, but I agree that in general the term would be misleading. There are people who think that abortion is a poor choice to make, and even feel that abortion is immoral, but feel that the state has not right to interfere with a woman's decision in this matter. I wouldn't characterize these people as "pro-choice".Like it or not, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the words that are used to describe the two sides in this debate, and that is what the words are understood to mean. Unless I want to invent my own language I suppose that I have little choice but to use these terms myself in conversation. Unless I want to use the more accurate phrases "those in favor of the right to terminate a pregnancy" and "those opposed to the right to terminate a pregnancy".

quote:

---

I'm really not sure that there are many people that are "pro-abortion" in the sense of thinking that an abortion is a good thing in itself.

---

Well, I do, and I suspect that there must a few people who agree. Although you do appear to be correct; it certainly isn't the most common opinion.

quote:

---

Instead the judiciary has been forcing the secularist view on the nation against the will of the Christians who are still a huge proportion of the population of this country and that is unconstitutional and in fact tyrannical.

---

It is in fact "constitutional". It is a simple fact that the US constitution is a hybrid constitution; it is partially a written constitution, reflected in the document adopted in 1786 and subsequently amended, and it is partially an "unwritten" constitution, like our British comrades enjoy, consisting of political compromises occurring so long ago as to become traditional, and consisting of Supreme Court decisions. I would prefer a totally written contract as envisioned by the founding fathers, but I don't get to make the decisions in this matter. I have to accept the world I do, in fact, live in.Nor is it of itself tyrranical. The only time anyone makes this claim is when a court decision goes against that person's wishes; that same person will invariably claim that the court is protecting democracy when the decisions go in her favor. The members of the judicial branch is appointed by the elected executive branch with the approval of the elected legislative branch. Many judicial decisions can be and have been modified by subsequent legislation. In the cases where the Supreme Court has made definitive interpretations of the Constitution, there are procedures that can be used to amend the Constitution. Since you yourself have advocated to people who disagree with you that they should use these mechanisms, maybe you should be the one to avail yourself of these procedures. Very recently the House of Representatives have once again approved an amendment to prohibit desecration of the national flag, and this amendment is a response to an earlier Supreme Court ruling.Furthermore, it is not tyrranical since the majority of Americans accept this situation. The majority of Americans are evidently comfortable living under a hybrid constitution. I don't like it, I would advocate a purely written constitution, and I would like see the opinions of the majority of Americans change in this regard. However, I do believe in democracy, and as long as a majority of Americans finds the current situation acceptable I have no choice but to accpet it. I do not call something "tyrrany" just because I happen to disagree with it.

Of course it is a euphemism. Who the hell is not "pro-life"? Everyone is "pro-life". I am a vegetarian because I am "pro-life". To use the term "pro-life" to characterize the anti-abortion position implies that everyone else is somehow "anti-life", which is not only untrue but ridiculous.

quote:

---

What is a liberal?

---

A conservative with a conscience. But I'm being difficult.

quote:

---

Conservatives seem to try to make things the way they "used to be," because the old ways were obviously better.

---

Strictly speaking, that is not even "conservative" -- that is "reactionary". A true conservative would be fighting to preserve the status quo. Seeing that Roe v. Wade has been with us for over a generation, for example, the true conservative position would be to preserve abortion rights -- trying to turn the clock back is the reactionary position.It would appear the "liberal" and "conservative" no longer have their traditional meanings -- rather, the words now simply represent laundry lists of positions on various issues.

quote:

---

It is commonly referred to as the Abortion Industry. I didn't make it up.

​

i've never heard it before, and i've been paying attention and listening to both sides for years.

---

I don't know how common it is, but I have seen it a number of times in the anti-abortion literature.