What America Needs is More Liberalism
Tags: Studies.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Or, at least, so some people claim. To restore American greatness and our position in the world, we need a strong dose of liberalism to make us more tolerant, just, kind and, for all I know, warm and fuzzy. But, just what hath liberalism wrought? Ask a liberal, and he’ll answer that just short of making the sun rise each morning, liberalism is responsible for all that is good in the world…freedom, science, intellectual growth, tolerance, etc, etc, etc. How about we take a look at the record?
Liberalism, from its glad morn in the 1930’s to its demise between 1980 and 1994, gave us the following:
War:
A bloody stalemate in Korea. A bloody defeat in Vietnam. 444 days of national humiliation in Iran.
Peace:
A half-century long nuclear stalemate. Cuba still under the same tyrant who ruled when Ted Kennedy’s older brother was a mere Senator from Massachusetts. A cease-fire in the Arab-Isreali war…in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974, etc, etc, etc…
Econony:
From the world’s predominant manufacturing nation in 1945 to Chrysler looking for a bailout in 1980. From a stable currency and low interest rates to double digit inflation and interest rates. The Pittsburgh Steelers are so called because Pittsburgh used to make a lot of steel. No, really.
Social issues:
Easy access to pornography; not that anyone other than a few perverts were clamoring for this, but liberalism felt sure that what America needed is more pictures of naked people having sex. We just weren’t complete without it.
Breakdown of the family; the cure for the problems in a marriage? Divorce, naturally – ’cause no one can really be expected to keep a life long promise and, anyways, if an individual isn’t perfectly happy all the time, then the whole thing is a failure. The kids? Oh, don’t you remember – they told us that it’d be better for the kids to have divorced parents rather than parents who stayed together and worked past the rough patches.
Massive increase in illegitimate children; Once upon a time, we unfairly shamed those girls who got pregnant out of wedlock…now its much better; heck, in some places we’re even providing maternity leave for high school girls so they can have their out-of-wedlock children with the least amount of trouble. Don’t worry – we’ll pass out condoms in school, teach kids how to masturbate and for crying out loud not even mention that, hey, it might be inapproriate for young, unmarried people to have sex.
Massive increase in violent crime; we got rid of all that unfair punishment stuff starting in the 1950’s and going on through the 70’s…perfection was reached when a first-degree murderer could, at one point, expect to spend all of 6 years behind bars with good behaviour. That this turned whole sections of America’s cities over to a criminal element which held in contempt a weak-kneed approach to crime isn’t important – rich, white liberals don’t live there, ya know? That the pathologies bred by leniency towards criminal – most notably the continued existence of extraordinarily violet street gangs – continue to this day is also not important…what is important is that all that conservative reform of criminal justice must be slowly chipped away…how else will we get Mumia out of jail?
Physical decay of the cities; we have to prioritise here, and when we’re faced with either filling in potholes or funding the transgendered assistence agency, we have to take care of the far more important matters. Anyways, things like clean streets and well maintained public areas are just manifestations of middle class American bigotry against the alternative lifestyle of bums…errrr…I mean, homeless persons, sex workers and differently sober individuals…
Abortion; all those pesky children! Who needs ‘em? Having a child can entirely mess up your demonstration schedule and leave you no time for filing lawsuits against the productive members of society.
Education:
Ah, the crown jewel of liberalism – everyone can go to school! Don’t worry that they don’t learn all that much…such knowledge is too difficult for the unwashed masses. As long as they tolerate gays, know how to use a condom and can apply for welfare, what more do they need? And don’t forget college! Everyone can go, even if they aren’t qualified for it…can’t keep a Prof on 100 grand a year without a steady supply of students, now can we? Nifty for the bankers who donate to liberalism, too – they get to provide the loans which pay for the education. The only people getting it in the shorts here are the students, so no worries.
Conclusion:
Another decade or two of liberalism and we’ll have an abortion clinic at Hugh Hefner middle school…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
30 Responses to “What America Needs is More Liberalism”
Caucus of Corruption
[...] ARI Media Escribio un articulo buenisimo hoyAqui hay un pedazo del articuloEasy access to pornography; not that anyone other than a few perverts were clamoring for this, but liberalism felt sure that what America needed is more pictures of naked people having sex. We just weren’t complete without it. … Lea el resto de este fabuloso articulo here Posted in Uncategorized Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. [...]
[...] Mark Noonan wrote a fantastic post today on “What America Needs is More Liberalism”Here’s ONLY a quick extractThe Pittsburgh Steelers are so called because Pittsburgh used to make a lot of steel. No, really. Social issues:. Easy access to pornography; not that anyone other than a few perverts were clamoring for this, but liberalism felt sure … [...]
[...] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on What America Needs is More LiberalismHere’s a quick excerptEasy access to pornography; not that anyone other than a few perverts were clamoring for this, but liberalism felt sure that what America needed is more pictures of naked people having sex. We just weren’t complete without it. … [...]
And the World View. A bunch of cut ant run wimps. When the going gets tough, count on US liberals to force a cut and run. The USA media will feed the useful parrots to carry the message. Peace, not War.
“4. SEW | February 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
And the World View. A bunch of cut ant run wimps. When the going gets tough, count on US liberals to force a cut and run.”
Like ronnie ray0gun in Lebanon?
Clown,
As evidenced below in Reagans letter, the Democrat Congress would not support his foreign policy efforts anymore and had urged him to withdrawal. Another gutless democratic congress. Please do some background study before posting. Makes you look foolish.
LETTER TO THE CONGRESS, FEB. 14, 1984
I am providing herewith a further report with respect to the situation of Lebanon and the participation of the United States Armed Forces in the Multinational Force. This report, prepared by the Secretaries of State and Defense and covering the period from December 12, 1983 to February 13, 1984, is consistent with Section 4 of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution. This report also includes the information called for by the House version of the Resolution and is submitted consistent with its more restrictive time limits.
Congressional support for our continued participation in the Multinational Force remains critical to peace, national reconciliation, and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. We will continue to keep you informed as to further developments with respect to this situation.
Sincerely,
RONALD REAGAN
No, like Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer, Hussein Obama, Feinstein, and the majority of the senators seated on the left side of the aisle at the state of the union address, and a few on the right side. The Veitnam hippies. Berkeley city council. And of course the useful parrots well represented here, like well named bozo the clown.
The Marshall Plan. The Civil Rights Act. Social Security. Nuclear weapons. The Air Force. NATO.
Oh well, you probably hate these things also.
As to the substance: well, history is bipartisan, I am afraid. It wasn’t a cabal that created our history, it was us. Democrats, Republicans, Dixiecrats, socialists, and whatever.
You can cherry pick things that you personally dislike and attribute them to a cabal, but I’d say you need to take more medecine.
Searp,
Many Democrats are, and have been, great Americans. In fact, I consider FDR and JFK to be two of our finest Presidents.
Liberals, on the other hand, specifically the current crop, are dangerous and undermine the efforts that have, and will continue to make this country great and our planet safe.
Mark-
Grow the F–k up.
Neo: well, OK. Not sure who you are talking about, but I do agree that there are some dangerous people out there. Most of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon qualified, including Rumsfeld. Danger isn’t just from liberals.
I do not want to sound as if I don’t have an opinion: Mark’s piece is not even a decent polemic and if this is the level of analysis that passes on the right, they have nothing. I agree with post 10.
If you want to change things, you should have decent arguments, ones that appeal to fair-minded, objective people that you could hope to sway. Maybe that isn’t the idea here?
Mark pointed out a long list of things which he feels are steps backward, regarding our nation and its state of civilization, and pointed out that they are the results of liberal influence.
searp and others, if you feel that the things he mentioned are good for the country, represent progress, have been helpful or beneficial, please argue your points.
If you disagree with Mark’s assertion that these changes were the result of liberal influence, please make that argument.
Because that’s the thread.
Silly psuedo-comparisons to what others did, or even sillier efforts to dismiss what Mark said by listing what are deemed to be desirable achievements and further asserted (I guess) to be the result of liberal influence are also not the point.
The points are pretty clear. Funny how they are being completly ignored, and/or obfuscated by irrelevant comments.
[...] post by Mark Noonan Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
neocon: I somewhat concur, but I believe Rummy was well intentioned, which is more than I can say for the radical liberal left.
Good intentions don’t amount to much without good execution. I’m sure Rummy had good intentions. And I can’t say his tenure as SecDef was all bad (I firmly supported his efforts to transform the military), but in Iraq his unwavering faith in his “small footprint” scheme was a fiasco. I don’t mean to blame all of the mistakes on him, but IMO, he should have been taken off the job much sooner than he was.
My attitude about the radical left is fundamentally the same — I’m sure they have good intentions. I just think their proposed solutions do more harm than good. Then again, I think the same way about the radical right. To wit: neither one of them focus on empowering the less fortunate. Rather, the solution is either to pass around government hand-outs and build artificial fences (in the case of the radical left) or to forget them altogether and let them fend for themselves on an increasingly unlevel playing field (in the case of the radical right).
Put in nice, neat, 15 second sound bite: Equality of outcome is not a desirable ideal, but equality of opportunity is. In fact, equality of opportunity was written into the Declaration of Independence. It has been a pillar that has defined our nation from the very start. We might disagree with the ways to implement equality of opportunity, but I think we can all agree on the concept — right?
Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche,
Interesting name – “Nietzsche is peachy”…so, the intellectual foundation of an amoral will to power regardless of cost to others is peachy? Great.
And what should I grow up to do? Work at an abortion mill and moonlight in the porn industry?
Almiranta,
They won’t – they can’t; they are afraid to.
This post is just another day in the life of Mark looking through rose colored classed. This cherry picked list is typical of BFV. From where I stand the 1945 economy was a war time economy, a war that resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Is that what conservatives want war all the time for the sake of the economy? I will take the peacetime economy of the 1990s any day. The steel mills closed because of mismanagement and lack of investment in plants built during the 1945 economy. Newer and more efficient plants sprang up in Japan and in the south. It was Republican Richard Nixon who was at the helm when we bailed on Vietnam; enough said. It was Reagan, Pointexter and Ollie North who made a deal to sell shoulder stinger missiles to our enemies in exchange for the hostages and a 1980 election victory. How convenient the hostages are released the day Reagan takes the oath. A deal I am certain Carter would turn down. In the eighties under Reagan’s leadership we learned “Greed is Good.” We saw the rise of the mega churches and TV evangelist looking for money instead of soles. During the eighties we saw neighbors trying to keep up with their neighbors, taking on massive debt at lone sharking rates. To pay off this debt both spouses went to work, leaving children at home without supervision and role models. Mark it was the eighties and Reagan’s conservative polices that marked the beginning of the strain on the family unit, not the sixties as wingnuts would have us believe. The hippies went to Woodstock, but took their kids with them. Today they would be left with a nanny
oops “glasses”
plain,
You do realise that “greed is good” is a line from a movie and that no one in the Reagan Administration even remotely held to such a view? You might want to start separating myth from reality in your life.
10. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Mark-
Grow the F–k up.
Wow……that’s mature…………oops, I mean manure!
I have NO idea how that happened!
Almiranta,
Mark provided no evidence that any of these things are caused by liberalism. Nor does he explain his rather arbitrary beginning and end dates of liberalism. (I didn’t know liberals died in 1994. Who was it then that kicked the crap out of conservatives in 2006? Zombie liberals?)
There is no explanation for why World War II is ignored but Vietnam isn’t.
You want me to respond as if this is an intelligent, meaningful argument. Its not. Its simply Mark listing things he doesn’t like, and attributing them to liberals. Its a silly and childish game that anyone can play.
I’ll try one: Since the rise of conservatism in the 1930s to its demise in 2000, there have been many rainy days. Ergo, conservatism causes rainy days. Vote for liberals if you want to see the sun again.
Its a silly and childish game that anyone can play
SteveGA,
No games!
When people want Liberalism, it makes God very angry.
–Jeremiah–
You want me to respond as if this is an intelligent, meaningful argument. Its not. Its simply Mark listing things he doesn’t like, and attributing them to liberals. Its a silly and childish game that anyone can play.
Exactly. There’s a handy rule of thumb that says you can gauge the seriousness of a person in a debate by looking at how truthfully and accurately he can restate the opposing position. Mark is chronically unable to give a truthful and accurate restatement of the opposing position, so it should come as no surprise that he also can’t form a meaningful argument. Hell, he even ties “teaching masturbation” to illegitimate children (hint: beating off doesn’t cause pregnancy) and claims that “everyone can go [to college], even if they aren’t qualified for it,” which is true, because no college has ever sent out a rejection letter to an applicant for not meeting standards, right?
Mark, it’s much more efficient to simply say “I hate liberals” than to prattle on with these absurd lists.
Tractatus,
No hate. Just explaining how dangerous your agenda is.
People need to hear the truth, instead of having their heads filled with your lies, and trash that you promote.
People need the Lord.
–Jeremiah–
When people want Liberalism, it makes God very angry.
Wow. I didn’t know that the Almighty was a political hack stumping for the GOP. What a load of BS.
Jeremiah
God does not get involved in our politics.
[...] What America Needs is More Liberalism [...]
Mark offers his opinions every now and then. OPINIONS.
If you disagree, if you have other OPINIONS, then this is a forum in which you can discuss those disagreements.
How silly and petty to get all riled up and defensive and hostile as if he is trying to prove some serious objective point.
BTW, the election in 2006 was hardly the blowout the radical Left would like us to believe. Anyone who is historically literate knows that traditionally, verifiably, the party in power loses a lot of seats after holding the White House for two terms. This has been documented, linked, quoted, and referenced so many times, here and all over the place, that denying it or ignoring is merely proof of radical blinders set to filter out facts.
Given that FACT, the Republicans lost fewer seats than historically they should have expected to lose.
Further, stop the claim that the election was a mandate for Liberalism—or even for small-L liberalism. It was a great media success, a hysterical reaction to falsehoods and propaganda put out to convince the American public that the country was in dire trouble, that everyone on the planet hated us and our President, and that the war in Iraq was failing.
But more than that, and the fact that encourages conservatives and scares the bejeezus out of the libs who are smart enough or brave enough to acknowledge it, is that so many of the Dems who won in ‘06 won by pretending to be conservatives.
Go back to the B4B archives and read the dozens/hundreds of threads and posts about how this candidate and that candidate were running on platforms that sounded more conservative than their Republican opponents—-and on how, after the election, we predicted that the Dems would rewrite history and claim that the election was really a mandate for more Liberalism when, when it was analyzed, it was really a mandate for more (or at least continued) conservatism, just with a different letter after the candidate’s name.
Name candidates who openly ran on anti-war, open borders, and higher taxes/bigger government platforms. With quotes and links, please, as well as the outcome of those particular races. Prove this wildly Liberal mandate you keep claiming.
I live in Colorado. I don’t remember if Ken Salazar was elected to the Senate in ‘04 or ‘06, but he ran against a noted conservative, Pete Coors, and won by a nose—and he ran as a completely moderate, nearly conservative, candidate. He never admitted that he would vote nearly a straight party line if he got elected—on the contrary, what got him elected was a belief that he was an honest man and that he would keep his word when he promised to do certain things, like demand an up-or-down vote on every presidential nominee.
He lied, he got into office and turned into a Dem toady, but it would be the height of foolishness to claim that his election was a mandate for liberalism in Colorado. The race itself was a race between two conservative platforms.
And that went on all over the country, as people became more and more suspicious of Bush and Republicans, due mostly to the relentless barrage of negative “news” dumped on them 24/7, and thought that Dems had the ability and willingness to legislate from a conservative position.
How many Dems are running as liberals? Come on, you must know—-has Hillary stood up and proudly announced that she is a liberal? Or a Liberal? Has she been running on her strong Liberal credentials? On her historical support for the Black Panthers, on her Socialist agendas?
How about Barack? Is he openly proud of being a Liberal?
How about the Dem candidates in your area? Openly and proudly Liberal?
C’mon—-it can’t be a Liberal mandate if people don’t know they’re voting for Liberals.