Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm a bit of a Noah Smith fanboy, but this article of his makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/can-liberals-and-conservatives-come-together-to-support-families/359972/

"The Culture War is over, and the liberals have won. With the legalization and broad acceptance of gay marriage, the last great bastion of government-supported traditionalism in Western society has been swept away. Elsewhere, the armies of traditionalism are collapsing on almost every front."

"Any time you win a great victory after years or decades of bitter struggle, there is the temptation to pillage the lands of the conquered enemy. This is always a mistake."

"there is now an equally overriding reason for us liberals to reach out and lend a hand to our fallen Culture War opponents. That imperative is the health and cohesiveness of American society. American culture is facing a whole battery of new challenges. The decline of stable families among the working class has fed inequality and immobility. Economic pressures—technology and globalization—are pushing the classes apart at the same time. And the economy is still sluggish in the wake of the Great Recession."

"But to make common cause with such conservatives, we will need to agree that stable, two-parent families (including cohabiting and gay couples, of course) are important and desirable.

To many liberals, that will feel like a concession on our part—after all, we spent a long time saying that people should be allowed to have any kind of family structure they want. And they should! But what is socially acceptable is not always what is optimal, and we can’t let society just abandon the working class to family structures that hurt them economically."

"In order to reach out to conservatives and unite to help the working class, we liberals shouldn’t worry too much about our differing goals; we should focus on achieving our common ends. That means looking into policies like wage subsidies that boost incomes while rewarding hard work. It also means framing the minimum wage in terms of rewarding work, rather than simply fighting poverty."

"Finally, we need to refrain from demonizing Christianity, and religion in general. Yes, conservatives have done negative things—discriminating against gays and women, suppressing the teaching of science—in the name of Christianity. But Christianity has also been a force for good in American society; it provided the moral force behind much of the Progressive movement a century ago, fighting for immigrants’ rights and humane treatment of prisoners."


It isn't a long article, in picking out the key points I ended quoting about half the piece, so follow the link and give it a read. And if you're in a reading mood, follow the link through to the piece on marriage, which is also excellent.

To my own thinking, the way we've fought out a lot of these issues maybe doesn't make sense from the position we've reached. When fighting it out on gay marriage, it made perfect sense to pick out the most extreme, most ridiculous members of the religious right and make fun of their crazy nonsense until the whole movement felt to embarrassed to continue defending that nonsense. But that's over now, and maybe to make progress on new issues, what we need is a new approach. Instead we look to find people on the other side that we can find common ground with, and then work on that common ground. The suggestion on minimum wage is a really good one - find the conservatives who agree that we ought to reward hard work, and work with them to make sure there's a minimum wage in place that does just that.

Maybe one front is closing, but that doesn't mean anything. The attacks on abortion just shifted direction.

How much of the attacks on abortion come from the general "right wing", or from outlying groups?

As an outsider, I get the impression that there is a broad amount of agreement, or at least lack of serious division, on a lot of points between right-wing and left-wing American moderates, who form the bulk of the population, while there is a strident extreme that gets a lot more air time than it deserves.

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe one front is closing, but that doesn't mean anything. The attacks on abortion just shifted direction.

Abortion is another good example of an issue that might benefit from a change of approach. The sexual revolution is won, the traditionalist will never get their ideal of sex only in marriage put back as a cultural value (because it was always bs).

So is there any value in maintaining an absolute position on abortion? Why not look for a middle ground, ways to reduce the number of abortions while also giving women choice and freedom? The hardline anti-abortionists won't go for it, but there's a whole middle ground of conservatives that won't freak out at the idea of making contraception freely available once they understand the impact it has on reducing abortions.

 sebster wrote:
So is there any value in maintaining an absolute position on abortion?

Yes, because you have a large group of conservatives who view any compromise as just one step in the process of getting a total ban. So you "compromise" between the current laws and a complete ban, and add a few "minor" restrictions. And then as soon as those laws are passed they're back to demand more "compromising" between the new laws and a total ban*. Repeat until abortion is so hard to get that it's effectively banned. The only solution is to hold an equally absolute position and oppose every attempt at new limits.

And of course the position held by most pro-choice advocates is a compromise. The extreme position would be demanding free access to abortion up until the moment of birth (or even beyond, according to a very small and irrelevant minority). But hardly anyone actually holds that position. The "absolute position" is just opposition to pointless anti-abortion laws that exist for the sole purpose of making abortion harder to get without explicitly calling it a ban. For example, forcing the woman to look at pictures of the "baby", or adding a mandatory waiting period intended to make it more difficult for people who have to take time off work to get to a doctor by adding multiple trips.


*The same kind of thing happens with gun control in the US. A major element of the anti-gun side has no real interest in legitimate compromise, and isn't going to stop making demands until they get a total ban.

The hardline anti-abortionists won't go for it, but there's a whole middle ground of conservatives that won't freak out at the idea of making contraception freely available once they understand the impact it has on reducing abortions.

But those middle ground conservatives already don't care about birth control. A lot of them are the Ayn Rand types who hate the thought of paying for any health care that can in any way be labeled "voluntary", but they have no problem with people buying their own birth control. Take away the "Obamacare = socialism" element and it's a non-issue for everyone but the religious zealots. And the religious zealots aren't going to compromise because the whole "pro life" thing is too important politically* to give up anything.

*Fun fact: abortion and birth control only became an issue for non-Catholics in the past 50 years. Previously they had no problem with it, but someone had the brilliant idea of unifying the conservative religious vote around the issue and using it to gain more political influence. So suddenly god changed his opinion, and anything that gets in the way of making babies is a sin.

I'd say I hope for the inevitable overreach, but given the Millenial shift towards reddit feminism and the David Gaider outlook of the world, I don't think it's even possible to overreach anymore.

But then, I've been told I'm an appallingly ignorant cis-centered rape culture enabler who provides a hateful, cryptopatriarchal, transphobic take on everything, so what do I know.

Seriously, though, what is liberalism in this day and age?

Maybe this rant is OT, but I've always considered America to be a 'liberal' country, probably the most liberal country there is.

And here's why: (please note that recently I've been reading a lot about Jefferson and John Adams!)

Guns. Giving your populace the means to defend themselves against the threat of a tyrannical government is probably the most liberal thing that any nation can do. In fact, historically, gun control arguments in America were based upon the premise of stopping African Americans from getting their hands on weapons. Conservative opposition was strong, especially after the civil war.

Free speech in the 1st amendment. Speaks for itself.

Some states legalising marijuana. Given that Americans have always prized individual liberty, and that in my view, people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want, as long as they harm nobody else, it's amazing that America didn't do this years ago.

So, to answer the original post, given that America has so many freedoms and prizes individual liberty, I would argue that the USA went liberal the day it was founded. Or am I mistaking classical liberalism for something else?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much of the attacks on abortion come from the general "right wing", or from outlying groups?

As an outsider, I get the impression that there is a broad amount of agreement, or at least lack of serious division, on a lot of points between right-wing and left-wing American moderates, who form the bulk of the population, while there is a strident extreme that gets a lot more air time than it deserves.

In the Real World (TM) most people are against abortion personally, but pro keeping it legal for the first trimester.

The War continues for the Bill of Rights.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much of the attacks on abortion come from the general "right wing", or from outlying groups?

As an outsider, I get the impression that there is a broad amount of agreement, or at least lack of serious division, on a lot of points between right-wing and left-wing American moderates, who form the bulk of the population, while there is a strident extreme that gets a lot more air time than it deserves.

In the Real World (TM) most people are against abortion personally, but pro keeping it legal for the first trimester.

The War continues for the Bill of Rights.

Lol wut?

I guess we live in different "real" worlds.

 Frazzled wrote:
In the Real World (TM) most people are against abortion personally, but pro keeping it legal for the first trimester.

The War continues for the Bill of Rights.

Well, that and certain Constitutional rights

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In the Real World (TM) most people are against abortion personally, but pro keeping it legal for the first trimester.

The War continues for the Bill of Rights.

Well, that and certain Constitutional rights

Didn't I say that?

D'oh! BC (Before Coffee) strikes again

I hear you on that!

Coffee is now brewing while I wait on Comcast coming to hook us up and I use the internet that AT&T should have cancelled two days ago

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Coffee is now brewing while I wait on Comcast coming to hook us up and I use the internet that AT&T should have cancelled two days ago

Sounds like efficient use of resources to me. I'm off to eat free food at an S&P Energy conference down the street. Its like a crashing someone's wedding without needing to bring a gift. Yee ha

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Seriously, though, what is liberalism in this day and age?

Maybe this rant is OT, but I've always considered America to be a 'liberal' country, probably the most liberal country there is.

And here's why: (please note that recently I've been reading a lot about Jefferson and John Adams!)

Guns. Giving your populace the means to defend themselves against the threat of a tyrannical government is probably the most liberal thing that any nation can do. In fact, historically, gun control arguments in America were based upon the premise of stopping African Americans from getting their hands on weapons. Conservative opposition was strong, especially after the civil war.

Free speech in the 1st amendment. Speaks for itself.

Some states legalising marijuana. Given that Americans have always prized individual liberty, and that in my view, people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want, as long as they harm nobody else, it's amazing that America didn't do this years ago.

So, to answer the original post, given that America has so many freedoms and prizes individual liberty, I would argue that the USA went liberal the day it was founded. Or am I mistaking classical liberalism for something else?

In the american political system "liberal" means democrat and "conservative" means republican for some fething reason.

How have liberals won the culture war? I mean. what?

There is an article, if you scroll up enough, that explains that premise.

We have legalized gay marriage? So what, I still see people ranting about how sex outside of marriage is wrong, how god must be in schools, how abortion is wrong. Nothing is "Won"

No one ever wins. You just do a little better each time

A compromise takes two people. One willing to compromise and another willing to accept. I don't think we have reached acceptance yet.

 Easy E wrote:
A compromise takes two people. One willing to compromise and another willing to accept. I don't think we have reached acceptance yet.

Nor one willing to compromise.

Yeah, that too.

It's important for libs to know when to stand down. Everyone's been out for firefox's blood because their ceo's personal feelings towards gay marriage aren't "enlightened" let's say. There's been a number of loud voices calling for a boycott, it just strikes me as absurd, by all indications the guy has never once used the business he runs as a platform for anything political. Ideology of any kind can get perverted real fast.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
A compromise takes two people. One willing to compromise and another willing to accept. I don't think we have reached acceptance yet.

Nor one willing to compromise.

Listen, Cant we just compromise that neither of us are will to compromise
NO!!!!

Look Hotsauce. I didn't pay for an argument.

Que Monty Python bit.

That is a refrence I do not get

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is a refrence I do not get

A good watch

Well if the Liberals won then they obviously turn into Conservatives. After all Liberal just means "wants to change things" and Conservative just means "Want to keep things the same".

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well if the Liberals won then they obviously turn into Conservatives. After all Liberal just means "wants to change things" and Conservative just means "Want to keep things the same".

There's quite a bit more to it then that all those are some attributes that the parties have.