[y66]

http://online.wsj.co...4918910647.html

Quote

I asked Mr. Emanuel if the election of an unabashed liberal like Mr. Obama has made the New Democrat strategy obsolete. Perhaps what we witnessed on Tuesday means that liberalism is ascendant and the U.S. is no longer a center-right nation. "I think the country is incredibly pragmatic," he responded. "Pragmatic and progressive. But you still have to mix and match different approaches to reach your objectives. You have to be flexible."

He said the similarities between Barack Obama and the last Democratic president matter more than the differences. "Both Barack and Bill Clinton have an incredible connection to the public," he said. "Both ran on a message of hope. Both ran against failed policies that let the country down prior to them being elected. I don't think the country is yearning for an ideological answer. If anything it's the opposite. They want real solutions to real problems. And if we do an ideological test, we will fail. Our challenge is to work to solve the actual problems that the country is facing, not work to satisfy any constituency or ideological wing of the party."

[Al_U_Card]

I asked Mr. Emanuel if the election of an unabashed liberal like Mr. Obama

He is certainly well right of center and quite a bit north of Libertarian.

His conservative values show in his voting record.

[Gerben42]

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

[helene_t]

When we learned about the US Civil War, I was surprised that the Democrats were pro slavery and the Republicans against. The teacher asked me: "Well, who is liberal and who is conservative?". I correctly answered that the democrats were conservative so I shouldnt be surprised that they were pro slavery.

But I still don't know if the democrats actually called themselves conservative then (in which case they must have swapped ideology with the republicans at some point), or whether it is is just that in European terminology, the Democrats were (and are) closer to the definition of "conservative".

The term "conservative" doesnt make much sense either. It means "opposed to change" and probably got its political/ideological connotation in a time when right-wingers were happy with status quo, In Iran, part of the revolutionary movement in the seventies are now "conservative" and that's not because they have changed their agenda ....

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 8 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

I asked Mr. Emanuel if the election of an unabashed liberal like Mr. Obama

He is certainly well right of center and quite a bit north of Libertarian.

His conservative values show in his voting record.

i honestly don't understand how you can say that... by every measure i've seen, obamba has one of the if not the most liberal voting record in the senate

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

i think it has more to do with how a politician views the role of whatever level of gov't he finds himself... the u.s. has been moving more toward a monolithic central gov't for a long while now, and i doubt the trend can be stopped...

[mike777]

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

When we learned about the US Civil War, I was surprised that the Democrats were pro slavery and the Republicans against. The teacher asked me: "Well, who is liberal and who is conservative?". I correctly answered that the democrats were conservative so I shouldnt be surprised that they were pro slavery.

But I still don't know if the democrats actually called themselves conservative then (in which case they must have swapped ideology with the republicans at some point), or whether it is is just that in European terminology, the Democrats were (and are) closer to the definition of "conservative".

The term "conservative" doesnt make much sense either. It means "opposed to change" and probably got its political/ideological connotation in a time when right-wingers were happy with status quo, In Iran, part of the revolutionary movement in the seventies are now "conservative" and that's not because they have changed their agenda ....

Hi Helene:

1) Please note even today for some reason in the USA many running for office will not call themselves Liberal....see progressive......reform....etc.........why? well that is another thread.
2) As for Mr. Emanuel...it seems to be a brilliant pick.........from what I read... he is a super smart...SOB loyal to the President......the next 12-24 months battle will be between "liberal" democrats...and "other" democrats.....the republicans are out of the picture........
3) Helene pls note most of us (me) in America understand the other side of the Pond labels even less.........
4) side note....are babies born in Europe auto citizens. full citizens able to vote..etc... as in USA but not in many places...Africa...Japan....Asia.........South America...Mexico...etc etc ......or do you need to pass some test....

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Nov 8 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

When we learned about the US Civil War, I was surprised that the Democrats were pro slavery and the Republicans against. The teacher asked me: "Well, who is liberal and who is conservative?". I correctly answered that the democrats were conservative so I shouldnt be surprised that they were pro slavery.

But I still don't know if the democrats actually called themselves conservative then (in which case they must have swapped ideology with the republicans at some point), or whether it is is just that in European terminology, the Democrats were (and are) closer to the definition of "conservative".

Hi,

The question is, why the Republican party was against slavery.
A lot of opponents of the slavery were driven by religious
believes.

And if you look at todays main base of the Republican party
you will find, that one of the main groups are still people with
deep religious roots.

On a side note:

The democratic party did split 1860 in the middle over the slavery
question, one reason why Lincoln was able to win, Lincolns own
party, the predessor of the Republican party, did split 7 years before,
so the Republican party just had a headstart of 7 years.

So deciding the question, that one one party was more liberal than
the other just by looking on this particular issue, is not really possible.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Lincoln was personnaly against slavery, but was not really willing
to fight for abolishing slaveryit, he was a moderate, the final proclametion
09.1862, 1 and, 1 1/2 year after the war began 04.1861, was mainly
intended as a military option, to weaken the South.

A statement I found reading a wikipedia article: The war was mainly
fought over the question, can a country leave the union on his own,
the South said yes, saying since we joined freely, we can leave freely
as well, the North said No.
The (north) democratic candidate did go South trying to keep the South
countries from leaving the union, he made it also clear, that no man from
the North would be willing to pay taxes shipping something down the missippi
to get it on a ship.

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 9 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

The question is, why the Republican party was against slavery.
A lot of opponents of the slavery were driven by religious
believes.

And if you look at todays main base of the Republican party
you will find, that one of the main groups are still people with
deep religious roots.

Just to be clear: Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party from the 1860s bears any resemblance to those parties today.

At the time of the Civil War, the electoral stronghold of the Republican party was New England. The Democrats were strong in the South. Today, this has flipped completely. Chris Shays - the only Republican congressman in New England - lost his relection campaign in 2008. There are still a small number of Repulican Senators, including two from Maine, however those are largely considered RINOs.

In contrast, the base of the modern Republican Party is the deep South. A number of bloggers pointed compared the following map showing how the States lines up in the Civil War and compared this to the 2004 and 2008 elections.

http://www.civilwar.com/

There are a lot of theories regarding why yesterday's Republicans are todays Democrats and vice versa. However, this realignment boradly boils down to three factors:

1. The 1912 election that split the Progressives away from the Republican Party.
2. The Great Depression
3. More recently, the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Lyndon Johnson famously told an aid that the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation as a result of signing the Civil Rights Act.

In short:

Yeah, the were a lot of religious Republicans 150 years ago
Yes, there are religious Republicans today

However, you're really streaching things to claim that the social conservatives who run the modern Republican party have ANYTHING to do with the Abolitionists... The two groups come out of very different religious traditions.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 9 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

The question is, why the Republican party was against slavery.
A lot of opponents of the slavery were driven by religious
believes.

And if you look at todays main base of the Republican party
you will find, that one of the main groups are still people with
deep religious roots.

Just to be clear: Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party from the 1860s bears any resemblance to those parties today.

<snip>

Yeah, the were a lot of religious Republicans 150 years ago
Yes, there are religious Republicans today

However, you're really streaching things to claim that the social conservatives who run the modern Republican party have ANYTHING to do with the Abolitionists... The two groups come out of very different religious traditions.

I agree, that the idendity of the parties changed, and that
there are differences.

But the Rebulican party was strong in rural areas, e.g. Lincoln
came from Illinois, he was a farmer son, and fairly religious,
... and he certainly did not belong to the Abolitionists.
And I am pretty certain, that he would not have got elected, if
he would have been an Abolitionists, he won the nomination of
his party against peoble with a greater record regarding this.

The Middle West had a long tradition to vote Rebulican, and
in those areas the peoble have a strong religious background,
which does not mean that those peoble belong to the strong
evangelical sort.
It may just mean, that those peoble are more in favor of small
goverment, indepence of the countries, ...l

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

As far as I can tell, especially from the presidential campaigns, it boils down to this.

Liberals think 'conservative' is a negative quality, but they don't advertise that to the general public on that basis because they know independants and people in the middle don't agree.

Conservatives think 'liberal' is a negative quality, but they do advertise that to the general public on that basis (how many mentions did you hear of Obama's liberal congressional allies in a negative context in McCain ads? or that Obama is 'the most liberal senator'? Or McCain say this is the most liberal ticket ever to run for president?) because they do not know independants and people in the middle don't agree.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Nov 9 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

As far as I can tell, especially from the presidential campaigns, it boils down to this.

Liberals think 'conservative' is a negative quality, but they don't advertise that to the general public on that basis because they know independants and people in the middle don't agree.

Conservatives think 'liberal' is a negative quality, but they do advertise that to the general public on that basis (how many mentions did you hear of Obama's liberal congressional allies in a negative context in McCain ads? or that Obama is 'the most liberal senator'? Or McCain say this is the most liberal ticket ever to run for president?) because they do not know independants and people in the middle don't agree.

my perception was that "liberal" is someone who is willing to attempt to improve the lives of minorities and underprivileged through the democratic process.

[hrothgar]

Coincidentially, the following came across the AP today

Quote

Nov 9th, 2008 | HARTFORD, Conn. -- A generation ago the Republican Party was the dominant political force in New England, populating the region's congressional delegations with moderates like Connecticut's Lowell P. Weicker Jr. and Rhode Island's John Chafee.

But today's GOP, led by a more socially conservative wing of the party, is finding votes harder to come by.

Voters on Tuesday cast out Connecticut's veteran Rep. Chris Shays, the last New England Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives. Sen. John Sununu was voted out in New Hampshire, leaving that state's Judd Gregg and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as the only Republicans among the region's 12 senators.

Shays' loss to former Goldman Sachs executive Jim Himes marks the first time since 1969 that southwestern Connecticut will be represented by a Democrat in the House.

"I felt that we were going to win this, I really did," Shays told supporters. "I felt that people were so good to me, they were so nice to me. But they were deciding they were going to go the other way."

New England's decision to "go the other way" in recent elections is a dramatic transformation for a region considered a Republican stronghold a generation ago.

The Republican Party and New England have a long history together.

At their first presidential convention, in 1856, Republicans nominated John C. Fremont on a platform of abolishing slavery in the territories -- a widely held view in the North. While Fremont lost, he carried 11 Northern states. Later, Abraham Lincoln captured the presidency by winning 18 Northern states.

By the late 1940s, Republicans held 21 of 28 of New England's seats in the House of Representatives. But the turning point came in 1964, when the Republicans nominated conservative Barry Goldwater for president, said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

Known for being fiscally conservative but more socially liberal, Northeast moderates -- dubbed the Rockefeller Republicans after the former New York governor -- started to be eclipsed by the more socially conservative wing of the party.

"The eastern establishment got weaker and weaker," Rose said. "Today, there's really no eastern establishment to speak of."

Chafee's son, Lincoln, was appointed to the Senate in 1999 after his father's death and was elected in 2000 to a six-year term. A moderate like his father, Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But he was defeated by a Democrat in 2006.

That same year, Reps. Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons of Connecticut also were defeated by Democrats, buoyed by anti-Iraq-war and anti-President Bush sentiment.

"There is no longer, to speak of, a moderate voice within the party," Rose said. "It's a party that's becoming more narrow and there's really no sense of compromise within the party."

Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said she believes the GOP can still come back, at least in independent-minded New Hampshire where the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

"It depends on the state. I don't really think you can look at it as a regional phenomenon," Donahue said of New England politicians trending Democratic. "The further north you get, the colder it gets, the more the voters look at (races) on a case-by-case basis."

A large increase of registered Democrats factor into Sununu's loss, she said. But those numbers can change, especially as more fiscally conservative tax refugees migrate north from neighboring Massachusetts.

"It doesn't necessarily indicate a long term pattern coming out of this," she said. "New Hampshire has a uniqueness in that way. It is not fundamentally a state that has in its essence more Democrats than Republicans."

Lawrence J. Cafero Jr., the Republican leader of Connecticut's House of Representatives, blames the image of the national Republican party for hurting the GOP in New England, where Republicans historically have often favored fiscal responsibility, abortion rights, protection of personal liberties and strong environmental policies.

He believes the problem worsened with the 1994 so-called "Republican Revolution," when midterm congressional elections added 54 Republican seats in the House.

"They lost their way and I think more and more New England people, especially those who were Republicans basically because of smaller government and less government intrusion into our lives, started to see their party led by people whose foremost issues were social issues, religious and values and morals, etc.," Cafero said.

"I think that turned a lot of people off in New England and they didn't feel the party was really with them," he added.

Carrie James, a regional press secretary with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which supports Democratic congressional candidates, said bad feelings about President Bush, the war in Iraq and the weakened economy have helped to persuade New England voters to support Democrats over the past eight years.

One bright spot for the GOP in New England has been their control of governorships. Republicans are governors in Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island.

"A big part of our strategy this cycle was to link Republican incumbents with the failed policies of the Bush administration and it's not applicable in a governor's race," James said. "But certainly President Bush damaged the Republican brand across the board."

Rose said he believes Republican gubernatorial candidates in New England will face the same challenges as GOP congressional candidates. He said it's difficult to tell what Yankee Republicans represent and what role they'll play in the future.

"The only reason they've been able to survive is they've acted like Democrats," Rose said. "They too, I think are going to become endangered species."

Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University, said he believes the Republican brand in New England will become even less popular over time, especially as some national party activists tout socially conservative Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the future of the GOP and the prime presidential candidate in 2012.

"I think that's going to turn off even more people (in New England)," said Whalen, author of "A Higher Purpose: Profiles in Presidential Courage."

Whalen said there is now an opportunity for an independent third party that takes populist stands to develop in New England and envelop moderate Republicans. He said voters in Democratic-heavy states, such as Massachusetts, are going to want a choice at the polls.

"There is no place in the GOP now for the moderates and they need to find a home," Whalen said. "The brand is dead in New England."

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

This took me a long time to understand after I started following politics in the US more closely.

A liberal would tend to be someone who is in favor of universal health care, thinks a welfare program is necessary, abortion should be legal, gays should have rights, affirmative action is a good idea, taxes should be progressive, that it is actually generally ok to have the government be somewhat involved in things. I guess you might want to throw some gun control in the mix, too. (I still have no idea why Americans started to use this word to describe these sorts of policies, doesn't 'liberal' come from 'liberty'?)

However, the connotations coming along with "liberal" are a different story. Those may contain a touch of elitism, the suspicion that those liberals look down on religion (along the lines of posts by Mikeh or you in this forum), don't think highly of patriotism, etc. I think the cliches about "liberals" are described well in these two posts by Clive Crook:
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives...n_some_resp.php
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives...and_respect.php
These cliches made the "cling to guns and religions"-quote by Obama so explosive.

(It is also worth noting that most Democratic left-leaning politicians prefer to describe themselves as "progressive" rather than "liberal".)

However, it seems to me that the charge of being a "liberal" is starting to lose traction, but that's another story.

[blackshoe]

When I was a kid, during the 1950s (the "McCarthy Era") I seem to recall there was a lot of rhetoric associating "liberals" with "dirty pinko Commies".

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Nov 9 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

This took me a long time to understand after I started following politics in the US more closely.

A liberal would tend to be someone who is in favor of universal health care, thinks a welfare program is necessary, abortion should be legal, gays should have rights, affirmative action is a good idea, taxes should be progressive, that it is actually generally ok to have the government be somewhat involved in things. I guess you might want to throw some gun control in the mix, too. (I still have no idea why Americans started to use this word to describe these sorts of policies, doesn't 'liberal' come from 'liberty'?)

that's not quite how i see it, arend... i see a liberal as one who wants the control of all (or most) aspects of our lives to be at the federal level

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Nov 10 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 9 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

This took me a long time to understand after I started following politics in the US more closely.

A liberal would tend to be someone who is in favor of universal health care, thinks a welfare program is necessary, abortion should be legal, gays should have rights, affirmative action is a good idea, taxes should be progressive, that it is actually generally ok to have the government be somewhat involved in things. I guess you might want to throw some gun control in the mix, too. (I still have no idea why Americans started to use this word to describe these sorts of policies, doesn't 'liberal' come from 'liberty'?)

that's not quite how i see it, arend... i see a liberal as one who wants the control of all (or most) aspects of our lives to be at the federal level

Yes, and you have said so many times...

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 10 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 9 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why being "liberal" is so often used as a negative treat for a politician in the USA? And what is actually meant by it? Here the socialists think "liberal" is negative because they want the state to do more for the poor and them liberals just protect the interests of the rich. I'm pretty sure that's NOT meant in the USA, so what is?

This took me a long time to understand after I started following politics in the US more closely.

A liberal would tend to be someone who is in favor of universal health care, thinks a welfare program is necessary, abortion should be legal, gays should have rights, affirmative action is a good idea, taxes should be progressive, that it is actually generally ok to have the government be somewhat involved in things. I guess you might want to throw some gun control in the mix, too. (I still have no idea why Americans started to use this word to describe these sorts of policies, doesn't 'liberal' come from 'liberty'?)

that's not quite how i see it, arend... i see a liberal as one who wants the control of all (or most) aspects of our lives to be at the federal level

Yes, and you have said so many times...

“Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.”

“Conservatives are very narrowminded: they are never willing to give any consideration to either side of the same side.”