T O P

In 1964, James Burnham, co-founder of the National Review and future 1983 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, outlined 39 sentences liberals would agree with. Do you think they still hold true? Has conservatism or liberalism changed under this assessment?

In 1964, James Burnham, co-founder of the National Review and future 1983 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, outlined 39 sentences liberals would agree with. Do you think they still hold true? Has conservatism or liberalism changed under this assessment?

AutoModerator

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


crewship15

Some things on the list are pretty context-specific to the 60s like the Cold War related stuff, but it's pretty much still accurate with the exception of 24. Note that for me, "liberal" and "left" are two different things. I think one thing that's different is that the "left" has been getting a lot more attention in media and social discourse nowadays as opposed to being largely marginalized or even persecuted in the 60s.


homeostasis3434

As for point 24, I think it comes from the same place as the statement about Joseph McCarthy being the most dangerous man in the country following WWII. So, maybe many liberals would agree we should have a commission on the Jan 6th insurections, but in general, government run investigations can prove problematic. They can be a useful tool for authoritarian regimes to suppress free speech or anyone who disagrees with the government and should be limited in their scope and power.


crewship15

I wasn’t really thinking about J6 when I said 24. There’s also Russia in 2016, the Facebook inquiries, etc


neuronexmachina

Now I'm really curious about what the debate (if any) was like around the creation of McCarthy's committee...


Pendit76

I don't agree that the left was marginalized in the 60s. In the West, this was probably the period the intellectual left had the most salience. The most obvious examples are the student protests in the U.S. and France. Many leftists were (often correctly IMO such as Sartre) tied to the USSR, but it was a much more friendly era than 80s or 90s. There were still people advocating for Soviet style communism which became an increasingly fringe attitude.


Ok-Accountant-6308

27 is no longer agreed on by liberals. Affirmative action and other racial based Quotas are part of the democratic platform.


twilightknock

Affirmative action isn't about quotas, though, at least not usually. It's just saying that you can consider the social context of a candidate, and that getting diversity in an organization can be seen as a positive thing in its own right. If you're the New York symphony and you are concerned about the long-term health of classical music in culture, you might see hiring a *very competent* non-white performer as more valuable than hiring an *extremely competent* white performer, because the non-white player can create hype in their community to help draw in a new audience without meaningfully lowering the quality of the music.


Ok-Accountant-6308

We can argue semantics and strawmen. The fact is liberals do not fundamentally believe in 27.


twilightknock

Nah, I agree that quotas are wrong. But I'm okay with affirmative action.


Sorge74

It's not even a super confusing level of nuance. If a state is 15% black and your state college is only 5% black, you need to look at how to better represent the people of your state. If you are hiring 10 policies officers and you say a disportotionate amount of them like say 5 need to be black, that's wrong.


Jasontheperson

It's not arguing semantics, it's literally a part of your argument (that's wrong).


flatmeditation

What's semantic about that? Are you saying you disagree with the definition of quota?


ooken

Mostly they are still relevant, but there are a few I'd update or that have gained bipartisan support: >Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites. This now has broad bipartisan consensus. Obviously racists remain who would disagree with this, but they are nothing but a minority in either party. EDIT: Others have pointed out that racism and other forms of bigotry persist, usually on the right, and of course I agree. People mostly would theoretically agree that equality of opportunity should exist, however, moreso than they likely would before the 1960s. However, there is disagreement between the right and left, and even among liberals, about what remedies should be applied now. Is reparations appropriate? Should programs designed to create greater racial parity focus on race, class, or some other dimension? Is critical race theory too essentialist, or is it a necessary part of education? Does doing things like removing admissions tests and getting rid of accelerated courses for gifted students truly create greater equity? These are more the questions of the debate now. >We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations. I would update this since it's no longer up to date to say that liberals generally believe we should negotiate with authoritarian, adversarial governments. However, this is a bipartisan feature really: Trump was happy to meet with Kim Jong-un, Xi, and Putin; even Reagan met and negotiated with the Soviets. >Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong. I think liberal opinion on this is more divided these days because of social media and its radical reshaping (and to some extent removal) of the previously existing boundaries on conversations. What does "censorship" mean? I have been thinking about this with the recent controversy in Canada with members of Halifax Pride demanding the Halifax Public Library remove the book *Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters*, which from its title and description does seem transphobic, from the shelves. I will never personally agree with libraries removing content due to upset patrons, but I also understand where the complainants are coming from when they say it is transphobic. I lean towards less censorship, but I have to admit I understand why social media companies like Twitter and Facebook were very skeptical of the Hunter Biden laptop story, for instance: social media platforms don't want to be blamed for propagating potential disinformation campaigns. >Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom. By and large, liberals no longer agree with this. This sentiment was a product of HUAC. I don't believe we should have another HUAC, but I am more concerned about the executive branch's decreasing willingness to cooperate with congressional subpoenas, and the judiciary's failure to protect Congress's investigatory power. The executive branch is already far too powerful in this country; it *must* be answerable to Congress. >In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong. Many liberals do not agree with this currently. There is no consensus but many support affirmative action and diversity programs, which aren't the same as quotas but nevertheless. > The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote. Most liberals would probably oppose denying the vote to the mentally ill and felons who have served their sentence. They would probably be divided on prisoners voting, although I think allowing prisoners to vote is more a leftist idea. >Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War. Maybe, he's definitely up there. McCarthy was a menace in his demagogic and bullshit-filled anti-communist crusade, though he was hardly alone in perpetrating the Red and Lavender Scares. Looking back from decades on, it's hard to see McCarthyism, as horrible and horrifying as it was, as *worse* than Jim Crow. The systemic terror Black Americans in the South lived under, even for those veterans returning from service in World War 2, and the sheer number of citizens affected by this oppression far outstripped McCarthy-era blacklisting. I would argue that the public figures I think deserve the biggest historical disgrace in the postwar era should be the ones who pledged to preserve segregation. The ones I am most horrified by are the governors who insisted on keeping Black children out of white schools. Harry Byrd, Orval Faubus, J. Lindsay Almond, Bull Connor, Ross Barnett, George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever" Wallace--get fucked and rest in infamy.


fossilized_poop

>Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong. Really well thought out and reasoned responses and I would agree with all of them but would add the above to the list. I don't believe in beating a child any more than I do beating and unfaithful spouse. In this context, this may be meant as simply spanking but seems unlikely and taking a paddle, ruler, stick or whatever to your child is wrong. Just as it is for any human being.


ATLEMT

Spanking, within reason obviously, i am fine with. Past that it’s just beating a child.


bannerflugelbottom

Yeah, I was totally anti spanking until I had my daughter. My son, if you look at him with a disappointed look he turns into a puddle. My daughter just laughs. She ends up getting about one spanking every 6 months. Threats work for a while, but eventually she's shaking her ass at me saying "go ahead, spank me!". It kills me every time I do it, but she's so headstrong it's the only thing that works.


YouGuessedWrongly

I know you’re doing what you can and being thoughtful about it, but please recognize that you’re teaching your daughter that an adult not liking her behavior is grounds for her to be acted upon physically. Much better, IMO to reward good behavior and take away those rewards and other privileges as a means of teaching her there are consequences for her actions.


bannerflugelbottom

Pro tip: Giving unsolicited parenting advice is pretty much never a good idea. Assuming you don't have children?


YouGuessedWrongly

Pro tip: don’t discuss your parenting techniques on a public forum if you’re unable to take a modicum of advice.


bannerflugelbottom

You never answered my question... How many children do you have?


ATLEMT

Yep. My oldest is stubborn as hell. Time outs don’t work, taking screen time away doesn’t work. But a pop on the butt does. They are rare but when it’s a safety thing like leaving the door open where his little brother can get out or using a knife to open things he understands the significance of breaking those rules more after a spanking than he does from a time out or something. My younger son doesn’t give a fuck no matter what. I swear he could get hit by a car and shrug it off like nothing happened.


Awesomeuser90

The FBI director, J Edgar Hoover, at the time would have been another good candidate along with Senator McCarthy. As for libraries, you could argue that the library is also the vessel which chooses to carry which books it will offer but others are allowed to distribute media as well. To what degree it acts like censorship depends a lot on to what degree a given library is the primary source of information. For most people back then, public libraries would have been so for anything written down. The precise distribution and the process and reasons by which books can be challenged is defined would drive most people´s opinions as to whether this is censorship. Negotiating with the Soviets was a bigger deal back then. Imagine that you remember when Khrushchev´s words of We Will Bury You (misinterpreted and should have been provided with the context and more authentically read that the American capitalist class self produce their undertakers and we will live to see such an event), that the Soviets just tested the largest nuclear bomb that if dropped on Paris would kill seven million people near instantly and wound tens of millions, and that it was seen as the ultimate octopus like evil, antithetical to American values (also in respect to totally different religious values), this would have been an idea that would be like negotiating with the Nazis to us today in the eyes of those opposed to it. And Obama did negotiate with the nuclear program with Iran in 2015.


F1yMo1o

It’s hard for me to formulate any other responses beyond the well thought out answers you’ve given. You’ve highlighted to a T the answers that most bothered me, with exactly my thought process. Bravo!


Philo_T_Farnsworth

>> Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites. >This now has broad bipartisan consensus. I would be cautious on this point. Yes, there is "broad bipartisan consensus" that the sort of discrimination quoted in point #15 is no longer tolerated. But a *lot* of conservatives have used this very stance as a cudgel against any discussion of "whether racism *still exists*", pointing to the fact we no longer tolerate such *open and blatant acts* as proof that "racism is over". Meanwhile, these same people will ignore more entrenched issues such as unequal policing of majority-POC neighborhoods, inequality in sentencing and in crimes, and the existence white privilege in general. They will then go on to say horrid things like *"but what about black on black crime"* as a subtle way to (without outright saying it) smuggle eugenics into the argument through the backdoor.


TheDude415

To build on this, I actually question how much of a bipartisan consensus there is with this. Rand Paul pretends to be woke now when talking about criminal justice issues, but let's not forget that when he ran for Senate in 2010 he said in at least one interview that he didn't think it was right for the government to tell private businesses who they can or can't discriminate against. It may not be something they say out loud, but I do think many Conservatives, especially on the Libertarian end of the spectrum, would disagree with Liberals on this one. I could even see how the fight over allowing businesses to not serve gay people could potentially be used to open things up further to allowing them not to serve people of certain races, religions, ethnic groups, etc.


BritchesBrews

More context on that 2010 statement, he felt that people have progressed to the point where an openly discriminatory business would be dealt with by the market versus government interference. I don't believe he's a bigot, just really bad at articulating his thoughts like his Dad. Why force it into the shadows? Let businesses do what they want and have it out in the open rather than hiding behind membership or other hidden discriminatory tactics. Bar in my town growing up would refuse to serve Black people by just saying they believed they were already drunk, which fits in pretty much every liquor license reg.


TheDude415

The problem is that by that logic, in areas that are still extremely racist, businesses should be allowed to discriminate. People like Paul always say stuff like that but it's really just a license to discriminate as long as others are ok with it. It's no different than the "States' rights" argument.


BritchesBrews

Is there anything really stopping them now? Would make it easier to compile a top ten list, which I assume exists since there are racist areas. P.S: if you actually live in the south most people don't care, it's actually better integrated than Chicago or NYC.


LiberalAspergers

You have obviously not spent much time in Memphis, Mississippi, or Louisiana.


BritchesBrews

The entire state of Memphis or just the city?


LiberalAspergers

Memphis has a lot more in common with Mississippi and Louisiana than it does the rest of Tennessee. I included it for a reason. Locals refer to it as the Mid-South.


Potato_Pristine

>Let businesses do what they want and have it out in the open rather than hiding behind membership or other hidden discriminatory tactics. It's not right or fair to make minorities suffer this and then just hope that "the market" sorts it out.


watchtheedge

With regards to broad bipartisan support, discrimination based on race may have become taboo on the right, at least regarding explicit expression, but liberals have moved their understanding to include sexual orientation, and conservatives are actively in opposition.


highbrowalcoholic

> > In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong. > > Many liberals do not agree with this currently. There is no consensus but many support affirmative action and diversity programs, which aren't the same as quotas but nevertheless. Nevertheless what? I don't agree with quota systems as a 'means' but I agree with affirmative action and diversity programs as 'ends.' The two aren't the same. > > The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote. > > Most liberals would probably oppose denying the vote to the mentally ill and felons who have served their sentence . They would probably be divided on prisoners voting, although I think allowing prisoners to vote is more a leftist idea. I get the opposite impression, so I'm curious to hear your reasoning behind your claim. Otherwise, interesting insight, thanks for sharing.


ashxxiv

While segregation was worse there was no one big figure like McCarthy pushing it. Just a bunch of small fish.


LongjumpingBadger

27 is interesting to me, "In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong." If this statement was made a bit more broadly to say "In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, *considerations of* color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong" I think progressive liberals would almost universally disagree. There is an argument to be made (and I believe is currently being made in appellate litigation) that prestigious schools in effect place a quota on the number of asian, and to a lesser degree white students that they accept in order to achieve a diverse class balance. Perhaps an area where progressive aims and classically liberal values (which this list really seems more geared towards) butt heads.


Prasiatko

9.) If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners. Stands out to me as one that probably wouldn't be that popular if it ever was with liberals.


VodkaBeatsCube

Opposition to eminent domain is mostly a right wing position these days. At the end of the day, a single intransigent landowner shouldn't be able to stop construction on a new highway or a dam or something. Expropriation is a nessissary part of building infrastructure.


Corellian_Browncoat

> Opposition to eminent domain is mostly a right wing position these days. Depends on the reason for the eminent domain. There is broad and at least somewhat bipartisan opposition to *Kelo v. New London* where eminent domain was used to take homes for economic development/redevelopment and reap the associated higher tax revenues.


LongjumpingBadger

Yes, but notable that Kelo was decided 5-4 by the liberals and Kennedy with only conservative justices dissenting, despite what seems to now be widespread opprobrium from both sides. I would actually be curious to see updated polling on eminent domain and whether it is justified for economic development among liberals and conservatives today.


Sean951

I think it would depend on context. I'm ok with the city forcing the matter with abandoned/derelict/empty lots that aren't serving another purpose, I'm against it in any other situation.


LongjumpingBadger

It's an interesting case. If you presented the specific facts of Kelo to people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 or Bernie Sanders supporters and asked them whether they agreed that the government should have taking power in that instance, I would bet at least half would say no, probably more. Just reviewing the wiki, an interesting range of groups supported the petitioners (who ultimately lost) including prominent libertarian groups, but also the SCLC and NAACP. I think many current progressives would agree with the reverse robin hood argument Sandra Day O'Connor made in dissent. It approximates some of the language used by the left today regarding gentrification. I have always thought that Kelo was a tremendous overreading of the "public use" provision of the takings clause.


Sean951

I would agree that it would likely be much more than half, many in the Left have become disillusioned by the ability of wealthy donors to get the government to do what they want, so there's less trust in things that aren't explicitly and clearly public goods.


scheenermann

Would you oppose the eminent domain used [in this case](https://dc.eater.com/2021/2/2/22262207/dc-buying-dave-thomas-circle-eminent-domain-parks-notorious-intersection)? There is, hilariously enough, a Wendy's in the middle of one of Washington DC's most annoying (and dangerous) intersections and the city is forcibly getting rid of it to fix up that whole area. The property serves a purpose, albeit a very narrow one, as a purveyor of fast food, but the whole intersection is hated in DC and invoking eminent domain to fix it up does the city a lot more good than a frosty.


jord839

It's debatable. That can be red as a foundational belief for wealth redistribution, as it can be tied to the government seizing excessive wealth or property and redistributing it for the common good, as long as there is some kind of compensation. That is more than likely the intent at the time, and most liberals and leftists in the US would agree with at least some variation of that. It can also be read as the government abusing its power to take land for its own ends that the owner might object to for moral or political reasons, like eminent domain for the purposes of gentrification or building a certain wall. That would likely be opposed.


EvidenceBasedOnly

The “reasonable compensation” pretty much explicitly prevents it from being used for redistribution. It’d be things like eminent domain or breaking up or nationalizing monopolies or similar.


BigRed323

How would we expect to get national high speed rail without eminent domain?


whiskeyworshiper

The only one I’d qualify is 21: “We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.” I would generally support this, but my respect for another’s religious beliefs ends when that person advocates for portions of their religion to become codified into public policy.


sarcasticorange

Would that also put you at odds with 2, 34, and 35 to an extent?


whiskeyworshiper

2: **“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion”** - only opinions that are proposed as legislation should be scrutinized for constitutionality. Otherwise, everyone can have whatever opinion they want. 34: **”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”** - Limitations already legally acknowledged and set in place for things like hate speech and fighting words. Otherwise, as mentioned as long as opinion are not proposed as policy and are expressed in a way that does not fall under hate speech or fighting words, I agree with this. 35: **”The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”** - the will of the people needs to pass legal scrutiny. I suppose that same theme is what I was getting at for 21 as well.


Ok-Accountant-6308

Hate speech is still legally protected. The opposite of “restrictions on hate speech being legally acknowledged”.


whiskeyworshiper

You’re right, I’m misremembering my US Law class I took over a decade ago.


pointlessarguments3

The 2nd one is so weird anyway. It's like just a statement of a logically true statement. Logically everyone can have their own opinion, if you are able to form an opinion you can have it. So it's a redundant statement really.


CanalAnswer

I suppose it depends on the policy, doesn’t it? :) The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required Jewish citizens to violate the Torah and return runaway slaves to their owners. I imagine that most runaway slaves would have been quite happy for *that* aspect of Jewish religious law to have been made the law of the land. Still, I take your point. Abortion, healthcare, and even tort law are covered by religious doctrine. It’s unwise to play favorites.


napit31

Religious beliefs aren't all that special. They're things you choose to believe. If you choose to believe that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, how much respect are you entitled? If you choose to believe that your god tells you that you can beat your wife, do we have to respect that?


joeydee93

I think people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't break laws that have been passed without the purpose of religious discrimination. Believing that aliens made the pyramids or the earth is 6000 thousand years old doesn't harm anyone, nor does that break any laws. Heck you can even believe that your god won't punish you for beating your wife but the state can and will punish you for beating your wife.


Semi-Pro_Biotic

Yeah, this. You deserve some credit here. There is a line, and it's not fine, between what we believe and what we do.


Gerhardt_Hapsburg_

And people get so weird about religious beliefs. Politician is religious. Politician makes policy with those beliefs in mind. How is that any different from Politician has deeply held self truths. Politician makes policy with those self truths in mind. The only difference is one puts a name to their doctrine and the other one just has it. Who cares if murder is bad is a personal belief or a religious one. Society either goes along with it or it doesn't.


Raichu4u

But what happens when a religion is holding the beleif that gay people are unnatural and shouldn't exist, even if they are aren't/doing a poor job at influencing policy? Certainly their beleifs are at least creating a lingering aura of hate that makes it harder for gay people to exist, yeah?


wowowow864921

You can't legislate away belief. If a person chooses to believe that very ugly opinion, then they will. As long as the law protects gay individuals from discrimination by that person, then we have reached the limits of state power. You can't order someone to think something. We know this because pretty much every regime over the last 5000 years has tried, and without exception all of those regimes still had dissidents.


BeerExchange

> gay people are unnatural and shouldn't exist The way it should be is if they aren't gay themselves then it should not matter.


PerfectZeong

As much as I'm asked to tolerate and respect anything I don't agree with I suppose.


DocTam

>They're things you choose to believe. Sincerely held religious beliefs are held to a higher standard and given greater rights because they aren't a choice. When the punishment for failing to act in accordance to your religious convictions is eternal damnation then a person must violate human law in order to maintain their conscious. No human law could convince a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion for example. EDIT: not quite understanding why pointing out that the US considers sincerely held religious beliefs to be special for a reason warrants downvotes.


Netherese_Nomad

No human law can convince Seventh Day Adventists to provide critical medical care to their children, so we can and do put them in prison for child abuse/neglect. Religious belief, no matter how sincerely held, is not an excuse for violating the Enlightenment-inspired rights and freedoms of others.


Gerhardt_Hapsburg_

Because those deeply held beliefs infringe on the rights of another, the child. A Catholic doctor refusing an abortion doesn't infringe anyone else's rights.


Netherese_Nomad

Yes it does, it infringes on the rights of the woman seeking the abortion. If every single doctor in a region claim religious exemptions, then people are unable to be treated in the scientifically advised way. Don’t be a doctor if you can’t do all the things doctors do. Same reason you shouldn’t be a butcher if you’re a vegan.


Sodadog1900

Also, if I could add religious freedom is important for liberty in the first place. Some people on Reddit seem to hold the opinion that only things you cannot change should be respected by anti-discrimination legislation. This view is illiberal. You shouldn’t be born a unique individual then forced to conform in every other way. People forget how horrible religious discrimination was in the early twentieth century western world, we don’t wanna return to that.


PM_me_Henrika

He says respect their belief, not respect their intelligence.


Big_Dux

All laws are derived from morality, and the concept of morality in any given culture is intertwined with the religion/dominant philosophies of that society. The separation of religiosity itself and government doesn't make any sense.


Graymatter_Repairman

>All laws are derived from morality, and the concept of morality in any given culture is intertwined with the religion/dominant philosophies of that society. That doesn't mean the religious underpinnings are morally worthy. Religious intertwining in law has caused all sorts of harm in the past and it continues to do so to this day. >The separation of religiosity itself and government doesn't make any sense. Separation of church and state grew out of the Enlightenment just as naturally as modern democracy did. It's one of the underlying principles of most modern democracies. There's no need for religiosity in government and plenty of good examples of its potential to cause harm.


X_g_Z

Lets look at Christianity as an example. Bible says that women are inheritable/sellable property, you can sell your kids as sex slaves, you can take slaves as war conquest, you can trick your slaves into becoming your slaves forever by piercing their ears like cattle if you otherwise would have to set them free, the kids of your slaves become your slaves, and its totally cool to beat your slaves as much as you like as long as they don't die within a few days. Would you argue this is a religiously moral position that thus should be part of legal policy based on your comment above? I'd argue that this is innately and inherently immoral, and that no person should be treated as property, as a slave, arbitrarily beaten, etc. Start with exodus 21, the slavery rules then follow in leviticus, deuteronomy and all throughout the new testament. Slavery rules stuff is probably one of the more consistent things across the Bible. Do you get your morals from inherent empathy, or from religion? I suspect if you were better versed in religion you would likely disagree with your own stated views above.


BigRed323

27 seems to be against affirmative action. We’re liberals ever against this? Seems wrong to me.


jkh107

The old quota system was a LIMIT on the number of Jews and minorities that were admitted to certain schools, employment, etc.


token-black-dude

27 today is seen as naïve by some liberals. Back then real discrimination on the basis of race was very much a real thing, and the assumption was, that in the absence of dicrimination, differences in education outcomes between races would diminish over time. That has not happened and it's become obvious, that the assumption was wrong and that chances in educational attainment is very much influenced by parents and social circumstances, and for that reason, many liberals today favor giving people with a less advantaged social background preferential treatment in school and university admittance. I think many liberals would agree, that in admittance to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong *if people from different groups have equal chances of obtaining admittance*, in the absence of that, affirmative action can be acceptable.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

You could argue about the finer details but that list looks pretty solid for modern liberal in the US. Not so much for conservatives. Particularly interesting since the list comes from the founder of The National Review.


Gerhardt_Hapsburg_

No one in this thread seems to understand that we're talking about small L liberals and not Liberals. ​ Edit: Well I guess in this thread we're talking about Liberals. But James Burnham was not.


14m4m34tp0p51c13

I'd say that list is pretty solidly modern conservative. I don't see it as modern progressive at all.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

At least in the US that list has a number of things that conservatives actively reject. Only in the details are their things on the list liberals would reject.


ImTheHungriest

Like half the list is spitting in the eye of a modern Republican. It’s bizarre to me they still pretend to believe in these things. Like we see who you vote for and what they say. We know you hate most of these ideals.


TruthOrFacts

When it comes to racial discrimination, free speech, congressional committees, and eminient domain issues, I don't think modern liberals agree with this. Conservatives probably disagree about McCarthy and negotiating with socialists, but probably not much else. Which half of the list do you think is "spitting in the eye" of a republican?


pacific_plywood

4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 35 all stick out to me as contradicting, at least in some situations, pretty core tenets of contemporary conservatism, at least as it's instantiated in the republican party (I think you could argue several others on top of that but these are the most ironclad imo). Some are circumstantial - eg, they believe in academic freedom in some cases, but also are introducing bills to ban discussion of "structural racism" in several states, or they defend rights to protest in some cases but have legalized running over protestors if they block a road (I think both of these are pretty significant violations of the listed principles, maybe others would disagree). Others are quite fundamental, like #13's clear contradiction of "America First". I don't really know what entity in modern America is supposed to embody this list. It's extremely classically liberal in a way that doesn't really stand up to the failings of the last 40 years. Both major sides in America have shifted greatly to attempt to grapple with some of these issues, dropping a lot of the individualism that reigned supreme in mid 20th century America.


_Doctor_Teeth_

Which of the listed statements do you think are conservative, or contrary to progressive ideas? Which statements would you want to add to make it progressive?


115MRD

>I'd say that list is pretty solidly modern conservative. Number 9 is literally the opposite of what modern US conservatives support. They want a flat tax and want to entirely abolish the inheritance tax.


wowowow864921

What parts do you believe a modern progressive would reject? I can see only 1 or 2 bullet points that would be rejected in their entirety. Everything is just quibbles on exact wording.


The___Doc

I would add addendums to 19 and 28: corporal punishment is always wrong, and "insane" people ought to be allowed to vote. Other than that, I agree with everything on this list.


peoplewhoare

\#24, #28, and #27 are no longer up-to-date. I don't think "insanity" is really punishable and therefore doesn't apply, not even legally to a non-right to vote. I don't know why it did before. Mental illness used to be harder to treat. There were hardly any medications for it. It was also far more discriminated against and shouldn't be. A lot of people have had treatment, through medication and therapy for big and small mental illnesses. They never needed to lose their right to vote. I think that is against your human rights, to tell people they are not mentally fit to vote. Some mental illnesses wouldn't affect your ability to vote anyway. Voting is even hard when you are not having a mental illness episode. Some elections were hard for me to vote in. They were trickier with more items to vote about. Who had that much judgment? No one. It was just illegal to not be able to vote.


hogey74

Historical context for some that aside, I don't many of them are controversial. There should be more about the rights of people to create businesses and to then act responsiby etc. There should also be clear direction on the responsibility of people to pay taxes comensurate with the degree to which they benefit from the civil and just society in which they have derived income.


davebare

19 (corporal punishment is *always* wrong) and 21 ("respect" is a bit strong. I'd say perhaps *acknowledge* their religious beliefs, but not respect). are a little iffy for me, but I think that most conservatives will agree that these are no longer the same principles that they adhere to.


115MRD

>8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation. This is quite literally the exact opposite of what conservative believe today. Today they favor a flat tax and abolition of the inheritance tax. This position would get Burnham run out of the modern US Republican party.


duke_awapuhi

I find it interesting how clearly prevalent the concerns of communism makes it into this, and that McCarthyism is still fresh in the minds of American liberals. As for which I agree and disagree with as someone who considers themself more liberal than not, I thought they were all pretty reasonable for the most part. However: No. 9 is slightly problematic for me. While reasonable compensation for the forfeiture of property to the government is in the constitution, I have to wonder how reasonable it is in the first place for the state to be in the business of taking its citizens’ property, and whether a monetary amount can truly be calculated for that. But I do recognize this as part of our system and makeup as a country so I get why it’s there, but I always found the idea problematic. Overall I agree with over 95% of it. I also think that people on the modern American left who take issue to some of these wouldn’t consider themselves ‘liberals’ anyway


Willem_Dafuq

By and large liberals would agree with most of that list. Carve outs would need to be made in some of the religious liberties points for the right to abortion and rights for the lgbtq communities but other than that it looks solid. Whether modern conservatives would agree is another question


TruthOrFacts

I think conservatives probably agree with the list more than liberals. Racial discrimination, free speech, congressional committees, eminient domain, and religious freedom being some key differences.


Willem_Dafuq

I don’t agree with that whatsoever. First off liberals are not against free speech. It’s just the conservative movement is now trying to portray freedom from consequence in the private community as free speech. And frankly even that is debatable. Conservatives had no problem advocating the firing of Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem. Where was his free speech? Conservatives are all about cancel culture-they just want to be the ones doing the canceling.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Silent331

Free speech means that the government can't lock you up for having a dissenting opinion. No one is obligated to give you a platform.


TheDude415

The GOP president literally said they needed to "Get that son of a bitch off the field."


Willem_Dafuq

First, liberals aren’t against censoring conservative speech on the internet. Talk about tax policy to your hearts content for example. But trump organized an insurrection on Twitter. It’s within twitters rights to not allow that speech on its platform. Similarly Facebook is within its rights to wish to not host baseless conspiracy theories. There are so many conspiracy theories about fraudulent elections and vaccine dangers that if Facebook wants to cool it with that kind of stuff, it’s free to. And along those lines-if conservatives are for freedom, are they not for freedom of social media companies to monitor what happens on their platforms? Nobody is stopping that speech on Parler or whatever other dumbass platforms conservatives wish to use. Basically-why should social media companies be mandated to host content they find repugnant? And I can’t even believe your comment on Kaepernick. I mean Donald Trump literally said to a raucous audience in Alabama of Kaepernick for the NFL “to get that son of a bitch off the field” and the crowd erupted with applause. If you’re incredulous, I’m sure I can find the clip.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Willem_Dafuq

First off, here is the link to what Trump said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY3hpZVZ7pk. And I want you to watch it because it really gets to the heart of what I am saying, which is the Republican Party does not have any sort of "high minded, Voltaire-esque" vision of the sanctity of free speech, which I think OP was really getting at. The Republican Party believes wholly in cancel culture too. They just want to be the ones doing the canceling. Consider the following: State houses banning the teaching of critical race theory: https://www.axios.com/gop-seek-to-ban-critical-race-theory-schools-8823c46a-0a88-46f1-ba5b-50e3056f5042.html Conservatives trying to boycott businesses that spoke out against GA's new voting laws: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/04/02/republicans-vow-boycott-retaliation-against-mlb-over-pulled-all-star-game/?sh=18709fea787c That is the original point I am trying to make to you. Now as it relates to Trump, you can say 'well he's not really a conservative', but whether we like it or not, the conservative movement has embraced Trump wholly at this point, and if you disagree with him as a conservative, in practice, I would say its you who is not really conservative because he kinda rules the roost in that party. As it relates to social media companies: what you say or post on social media is governed ultimately by the terms of service you agree to with Twitter, Facebook, etc. And though I never read the TOS with those entities, I am sure there is a section that stipulates that the companies have the power to remove content they feel is objectionable, and if someone repeatedly posts objectionable content, the companies have a power to remove that person's access. And if you do not like that, you are free to leave. Nobody is forcing you to be on Twitter or Facebook. You're sending me examples of situations which you think are unfair, but in reality my response is "fine". Facebook is free to censor content of pepperoni pizzas if it sees fit. Your recourse is to leave. That is the freedom of speech you have, and nobody is limiting that from you. You are free to join Parler, as I've stated, or any other social media network to post your content. You are trying to make a social media network moderation issue into a civil rights issue. It's not, at least not as the law is conceived


TruthOrFacts

Ok, so on cancel culture I have a couple of points. 1. Boycotting isn't cancelling. If a university hosts a speaker that I don't like, I'm free to withdraw as a student and go somewhere else, or just not attend the speech. Cancelling isnt choosing not to support something, it isn't choosing not to hear something, it is choosing to make it so others can't support it or hear it. It is calling for the university to disinvite the controversial speaker. If your view is "I don't want to hear this guy, and I don't want other people to be able to hear this guy" well you might be part of cancel culture. 2. Banning critical race theory isn't cancelling , it isn't a person. That is just an mischaracterization of what is going on. It is on govt to decide the curriculum for schools, so there will always be some ideas that get excluded, like creationism etc... I don't really consider myself a conservative, conservatives certainly wouldn't consider me one. I'm probably what you would call a filthy centrists. I leaned democrat during the bush years, then Democrats started becoming radical, and now I vote libertarian because I can't stand either party. No one is talking about the legality of what social media companies are doing, it isn't in dispute. This is a discussion about whether or not it is right, or good that they do what they do, or that they can do what they do. It isn't about the whether or not they are in legal troubles as things stand now. The issue is that these companies aren't responsible for what is on their websites because it is user content, it isn't THEIR content. Yet now that they are filtering and curating the content, it is effectively becoming THEIR voice, yet they don't have any responsibility for it. You can't have it both ways. They either need to take their hands off the content moderation and be a platform for the people, or they need to accept responsibility for the content.


jkh107

> free speech, Conservatives seem to be making a lot of laws about what doctors and teachers can say...so I dunno that it's a big value for them, honestly. They just don't like it when people disapprove of what they say.


jgkeeb

I think you'd definitely get universal liberal agreement to an individual, state, and global commitment to caring for the earth and environment as well.


_Doctor_Teeth_

I think left-leaning people would still agree with most of this list, but there are several that are extremely vague and require context. For example: >We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others. Beliefs are not deserving of respect simply because they purportedly derive from religious faith. Like, sure, I don't think a local business could hang a sign that says "No Jews" or something like that, but if you believe that LGBTQ people are not entitled to equal rights because of your religious belief, that is not a belief that I need to "respect". Relatedly: >social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong. What does "social discrimination" mean here? If I run the local Gay Men's Chorus and an evangelical, anti-gay activist who likes to sing wants to join, and I exclude him, is that "social discrimination"? There are some other quibbles. Like, when it talks about "interference" in free speech (No. 12) or "censorship" (No. 23) my question is: what does that mean? If I own an event venue and the local neo-nazis want to hold a rally there, and I choose not to rent the venue to them, have I interfered with their free speech or censored them? If I'm a bookstore owner and I choose not to sell Josh Hawley's book, am I interfering with his free speech or censoring him? Again, the context matters here, I think. Also I'd say that I agree the government can take private property for fair compensation (No. 9), but there needs to be an adequate public purpose. Like, I don't think a government should be able to just arbitrarily buy someone's property only to, idk, do nothing with it, or destroy it, or use it in a way that is contrary to the public good. I guess maybe one way to put it is that I don't think the *only* restraint on the power of eminent domain is the requirement for compensation. If the Mayor/City Council of Everytownsville fucking hate Bob, the town shouldn't be allowed to by Bob's house and sell it to the Mayor's brother. I mean, even No. 35: >The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. That sounds great but what if a majority of the people want to segregate people by race or pass discriminatory laws or oppress certain classes of people? I'd say the will of the people should be the basis of authority but that authority needs to be limited based on the spirit of some of the other listed ideas. This is a non-exclusive list. I won't go through all of them but I'll just say a lot of these have these sorts of issues--they're either vague or context-dependent and so it's hard to simply say yes/no. Overall though, yeah, I think most left-leaning people would agree with most of these.


MathAnalysis

Burhnam definitely didn't account for cancel culture. Whether or not it has been taken too far is up for debate, but [the treatment of Erika Christakis](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/) (for example) is definitely a huge departure from the free speech liberalism of the past. And most Democrats don't think it's a problem ([YouGov](https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/07/28/cancel-culture-yahoo-news-poll-data)). Modern liberals aren't afraid to criticize religions/institutions/demographics with whom they disagree on issues like race or gay rights. A good explanation is Popper's [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) \- the idea that being tolerant of intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_UR_BAES_POSTERIOR

Sure, but in today's climate a few agitators can make life hell for people that don't toe the line. It's totally reasonable to say that some people at Yale wanted her to be canceled, and she chose cancelation rather than continuing to go through hell to fight the agitators.


Graymatter_Repairman

I agree that cancel culture can be unjust but I also think it has the potential to self correct by design and there's an aspect to it that I really like. More than anytime in human history the nameless masses have almost immediate reach to curb behaviours and corrosive opinions they don't like by simply choosing who they want to endorse. I am a free speech fundie and I don't see it as a problem in that regard. Removal of endorsement isn't a removal of the right to speech. Bad ideas have always been met with punitive opposition, this is just the upsized and immediate digital age version of that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Graymatter_Repairman

What I meant by self-correction and didn't adequately explain is it has the potential to organically recognize Injustice in itself and reverse previous unjust decisions. I was thinking in terms of previously unknown evidence and information coming to light or improvements in our collective moral framework. I think the right-wing boogeyman aspect to it is its digital age immediacy and power. It's the same old fear of something new.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Graymatter_Repairman

I don't think it has happened yet either. It just looks plausible within the framework of the idea.


BillHicksScream

>cancel culture. There is no cancel culture.


CaptainShrubbery

I think this idea of cancel culture is overblown. In some cases someone may have said something as a teenager, but it gets dragged through the dirt later on. People grown and change over time. People don't forgive some past mistakes and I think that's wrong. You always had to have the right opinion, no matter what, and at all times in your life. And life just doesn't work that way.


LambdaLambo

"cancel culture" (which is way blown out of proportion) is still just people expressing their opinion and speech. That's something the left and right agree are a good thing. If people want to use their power of speech to say they don't want to see someone, that's their right.


highbrowalcoholic

Can you define "cancel culture" please?


Silent331

Not the other guy and I'm sure he completely disagrees with his definition, but I would say cancel culture is the online community utilizing their collective ability to bring publicity to the advertisers and others that fund individuals who produce what they consider to be morally reprehensible content. By directly associating the advertisers or funders with that specific piece of content, it puts immense pressure on the advertisers or funders to cease doing business with that content creator. By removing enough funding sources from The content creator, they will no longer be able to produce the morally reprehensible content, and thus are 'canceled'.


MathAnalysis

>Not the other guy and I'm sure he completely disagrees with his definition Hello it's me! I mostly agree with you, but I think cancel culture is a little more damaging than you define it because it's not just about "bringing publicity." It's about applying harsh consequences. It's not just "be aware" so much as "this person is evil now and they don't deserve to be a part of our circle."


jkh107

So basically a boycott?


Loop_Within_A_Loop

>Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions. I live in a neighborhood lousy with the "science is real, water is life" signs along my jogging route, and there have been a couple variations that I've seen, and absolutely zero of them mention labor relations, or a living wage, so I think liberals might be drifting away from this one


toastymow

In my experience most of those people tend towards white collar, office jobs, and are often actually quite highly paid. The people who talk about unions are too poor to own houses with yards wherein they could put their "political" signs.


Loop_Within_A_Loop

Absolutely correct. Teachers are about the only white collar profession with an actual labor presence, and they're this unworkable leviathan to the rest of them. Well, who's gonna be laughing once UberOffice launches?


Xakire

Trade unions and workers rights was always more of a socialist/social democratic focus than liberals. Americans just use the word liberal overly broadly.


ImTheHungriest

Who’s fighting for a minimum wage increase and who’s fighting against one?


Loop_Within_A_Loop

Democrats collectively shouldn't put "fighting for a minimum wage increase" on their resume because when you do ask "who's standing in your way" they have to answer "other Democrats"


ImTheHungriest

Huh. So it’s the 2 democrats not the fact that not one of the 50 republicans will step up. Cool.


-LEGO-

I don't think anyone says that people don't have the right to form and join trade unions. The issues revolve around forcing people to join a union.


Loop_Within_A_Loop

You are significantly more likely to try to form a union only to see your employer pull out every trick they have to stop you, legal or not, and see said employer face zero repercussions for their actions, than to be forced against your will to join a union. Remember, if you like the way things are at your place of work, a union contract is a great (possibly the best) way to keep them that way.


thisdude415

Most of these are true, except that liberals are much less pro free speech than we once were. We still believe in genuine free speech, but there’s an increasing recognition that for the health of democracy, it may be necessary to make new regulations requiring social media companies to regulate speech in ways that do not inflame extremism and disinformation. Points 12 and 23 are undergoing a reexamination on the left, especially among younger liberals, in reaction to disinformation campaigns, “fake news,” and related conspiracy theories. Many liberals would support new regulations on speech that tamps down extremist rhetoric and online echo chambers.


sparky135

Without examining the exceptions to each one, I have anxieties about allowing religious communities to deny freedom to their daughters. I don't want to see American citizens... girl children.... raised in a way that they cannot go out of their home without being covered from head to toe with some kind of religious costume. I feel ok about head scarves I guess. And of course I do not believe genital mutilation of women should be allowed. I don't see circumcision in boys as mutilation. But I recognize that some of you do consider it to be mutilation also. I don't know how to reconcile that difference among us.


TheDude415

Surely this applies to the religious communities that are marrying off teenage girls to adult men as well, right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Poobeard76

I work at a college. I would say that everything you wrote is more or less correct. And as such, a lot of the list does not apply to the types of liberals who populate a college campus. The free speech ones, the tolerance for unpopular opinions, etc. are all not part of that version of liberalism. I say that as a liberal who is much more aligned with the institutional wing of the Dem party than the rising populist left (Bernie and Co.). I wouldn’t say that disagreeing with the list or parts of it makes them any less liberal. But to answer OP, it certainly means the list no longer applies to some types of liberals, if it ever really applied to any of them.


Tamerlane-1

Can you provide evidence for your claims?


napit31

I made three different points. One: They discriminate on the basis of race in admissions. Two: They have segregated housing and segregated graduations. Three: These policies were made by liberal administrators. which do you need a citation for?


Xakire

They asked for evidence of your “claims”. That’s a plural. Clearly they wanted evidence for all of the wild accusations you’re making.


aggiecub

A link to your schools policy backing up your claim. All you did was restate your first assertion, that's not providing evidence.


Tamerlane-1

I know what you are going to say. You are going to argue that affirmative action policies are discriminatory. Of course, the aim of affirmative action is to make the student body at the school match the racial composition of the wider community. Unless you believe one race is naturally inferior to another race, it should be obvious why that would lead to a smarter and better student community. Furthermore, the net effect of affirmative action policies is to make up for implicit discrimination in the application process. Allowing minority students to live with each other or have their own graduation ceremonies is not segregation because it is voluntary.


TruthOrFacts

Unless you believe one race is naturally inferior to another race, it should be obvious why that would lead to a smarter and better student community. If you truly believe the races are equal than a diverse group of students should be equally as smart as a group of students of a single race / ethnicity. I think you have it exactly backwards. Allowing minority students to live with each other or have their own graduation ceremonies is not segregation because it is voluntary. I don't think you know what voluntary means. Unless you are saying that a white student would be permitted to live there as well. If you tell people they can't live somewhere because of their race, that is segregation and I'm not sure why that isn't clear to you.


Tamerlane-1

> If you truly believe the races are equal than a diverse group of students should be equally as smart as a group of students of a single race / ethnicity. I think you have it exactly backwards. That is correct if you are looking at a random selection of students, but university generally don't aim to accept a random selection of students. If the university aims to accept the smartest 5% of students in a state but they end up accepting one race at double the proportion of another race, then they have failed in their goal of accepting the smartest 5% of students. > If you tell people they can't live somewhere because of their race, that is segregation That might be how you define segregation but I don't think that is how a liberal would define segregation. A liberal would define segregation as a policy of separation which creates injustice. I don't think anyone views black-only student communities as creating injustice since I'm guessing they have the exact same resources and privileges as everyone else.


TruthOrFacts

So your idea of diverse group being better is loaded with the presumption that a less diverse group was achieved by including less smart students over more diverse students. That is fair and something I would agree with. A liberal would define segregation as a policy of separation which creates injustice. Creating injustice isn't a perfectly objective thing. It is subject to politics and opinion. So this boils down to, "nothing we do can qualify as segregation because we think it is justified"


[deleted]

[удалено]


napit31

> What percentage of the student body are People of Color? How about faculty and staff? Not sure why that matters. The question is do they discriminate on the basis of race or not. The percentage of student body is irrelevant. >PS- regardless, your comment is just here to troll. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. I legit disagree with what OP said, and i said why. You calling me a troll does not refute anything. Name-calling does not change my point. >but fact is that liberals today vehemently agree with the statement that “all forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong’. Except discrimination in admissions and segregation in things like graduation ceremonies and housing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


K340

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.


Poobeard76

Look at No. 27. It clearly shows that you are wrong and the supposed troll is right, at least in his reading of what this says. If you are for affirmative action, you are no on 1 and 27. And if that is the case, you could answer OP by saying that no, this list no longer reflects liberals (if it ever did). But “troll” is right that the list specifically defines liberals as against what he presented.


Graymatter_Repairman

I disagree or have problems with the following: >14 Colonialism and imperialism are wrong. True if the general idea that backing fledgling democracies with military muscle isn't labeled as colonialism or imperialism as is far too often the case on the left today. If anyone is interested, I recently posted a more indepth version of my opinion on this very topic [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/nh8ld4/kyle_kulinski_buys_into_deepstate_conspiracy/gyw2qlo/?context=3). >19 Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong. No, physical assault is wrong, full stop. Even more so if small children are the victims. >21 We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others. No, I don't respect delusional beliefs of any description and I think it's an insult to the believer's intelligence to pretend that I do. If I must then giving preferential treatment to religious delusions and not QAnon or tinfoil hat beliefs is bigotry, as that word has been warped to mean today. Either protect tinfoil hat belief in the constitution or take religion out. No one likes a tinfoil hat bigot. >24 Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom. No, congress people are the representatives of the people and should have as much power as possible to investigate as they see fit. >29 Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War. Probably true and I suspect he's the reason for wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater in #24. >31 Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing. ...when our planet is almost entirely liberal democracy.


Mist_Rising

>...when the planet is almost entirely liberal democracy Not sure why that would be relevant, unless you mean one world government, since liberal democracy can and do engage in conflict jusr fine.


Graymatter_Repairman

>since liberal democracy can and do engage in conflict jusr fine. I'm trying to think of one and can't. I'm not doubting you, I'm just drawing a blank. If true it's certainly not the norm and 'steps toward world disarmament' looks entirely plausible to me in the scenario I described. Edit, I am definitely pro an overarching global democracy with protections for smaller states, similar to the makeup of the US senate, in a world of liberal democracies. It could be responsible for things like environmental protection, pandemics and resolving conflicts. Similar to the mandates of the UN today.


Awesomeuser90

31 depends on who and where is doing disarmament. Ending a conflict in a certain region where arms are a big issue can be done, like massively reducing the size of militaries in the Balkans regions after the Yugoslav Wars, which also coincided with an end to conscription in those regions. And many people have no idea how much more militarized and openly sabre rattling people could be then in places we often think of as much less armed today. The Bundeswehr was much larger 40 years ago and was much more active in getting new weapons. Compared to then, many things have been reduced, even nuclear weapons have actually seen a big drop and probably would have had even more of a drop had Putin not taken control of Russia as effectively as he did, things that a somewhat different constitution like being unable to fire the prime minister, term limits being absolute and unamendable, and limits on their decree/veto/appointments power in a slightly different more French constitution would probably have helped to do.


ImTheHungriest

1) Republicans writing laws to stop black people from voting. Clearly they don’t believe in this ideal. 5) Republicans advocate for torture now. Trump ran and won on it. 8) Republicans hate progressive taxes and advocate for flat taxes. 13) Republicans hate foreign aid. Does not matter if altruistic or benefits us or both. They see money going to foreign countries as a waste. 14) Republicans think colonized countries owe the colonizers a debt of gratitude. They’ve embraced “western chauvinism”. They have no regrets or moral qualms with colonizing. 15) The last Republican president was sued and lost for rental discrimination against black people. If this bothered republicans he would have never been the candidate. I don’t have time to keep going but no this list is not relevant, which is what happens to a list of shared ideals when one party stops believing in reality.


-LEGO-

Show me a Republican written law that stops black people from voting. Here's a law from Democrats that explicitly denies White farmers stimulus money https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-farmers-loan-forgiveness-lawsuit-racial-bias/ > the Biden administration's COVID-19 stimulus plan provides $4 billion to forgive loans for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who are Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Alaskan native, Asian American or Pacific Islander. > > White farmers aren't eligible,


ImTheHungriest

I mean it’s fun to play pretend time but I don’t engage with people that refuse to acknowledge obvious realities. I won’t debate with you about if Biden won and I won’t debate you if republicans are using voter suppression in an effort to undermine democracy because they understand the future of democracy is bleak for them. If you don’t want to live in reality don’t expect people who do to take you seriously.


-LEGO-

Who is saying Biden didn't win? Biden did win and as a result we blately racist policy's being implemented. Show me a Republican written law that uses race as a criteria?


ImTheHungriest

60% of your party doesn’t think Biden won. I know you guys are desperate to paint the party that 90+ percent of black voters support as racist because you’re tired of carrying that burden but your bad faith efforts are obvious and not worth seriously responding to. 90+%. It’s not a coincidence and it’s not (the obviously racist idea that you guys push) because they are too stupid to understand what’s in their best interest. It’s because they aren’t dumb and your bullshit is not working.


-LEGO-

> 60% of your party doesn’t think Biden won Source that 60% of libertarians don't think Biden won? And do you think that Biden's policy of explicitly excluding white farmers from stimulus money is racist?


ImTheHungriest

How much stimulus money went to farmers? How much was earmarked for those who have been historically shut out by banks that cater to farmers? Why do 90+% of black people fote for the party of racists? Do you think they are stupid? And I assumed you were a Republican since you’re set on denying the realities of the modern gop. Weird you’re defending them still. 60% of an insignificant population isn’t worth talking about. Had I known you were a member of a party unrelated to this conversation and with literally zero power in this country I would have ignored you….


-LEGO-

So is Biden's policy of explicitly excluding white farmers from stimulus money racist or not? It's a simple yes or no.


ImTheHungriest

Trying to right the wrongs of history is never racist no matter how much you want to be a victim.


-LEGO-

So as an Italian, when are the wrongs against Italian immigrants going to to righted?


Poobeard76

I don’t think the list reflects modern liberals if it ever did. A lot of it might apply to what I call institutional Democrats. These are liberals that tend to hold 1980s and 1990s Democratic values. They are the kind that more likely voted Biden, Pete or Amy in the primary. A lot of them seem antithetical to the populist left — Bernie voters mostly.


MrScaryEgg

Isn't what you've said a bit contradictory though? I mean, Biden won the primary, and if you include people who voted for candidates like Buttegieg then you have an even larger majority supporting more traditionally 'liberal' candidates. The fact that Biden rather than Bernie won the primary shows that "institutional Democrats" are the majority of modern American liberals, doesn't it? Even so, I'm pretty lefty - I wouldn't really consider myself a liberal - and I agree with pretty much all of them, with some qualifications. I do agree with you that someone who was more liberal than me, i.e. someone who voted for Biden in the primary, might agree with nearly all of them. So even if the list doesn't reflect the views of modern leftists (which I think it *mostly* does) it does reflect the views of modern liberals, unless Biden voters are not liberals.


Garushulion

Just so you know, the "woke" left mostly aligned with Warren in the last primary , although Bernie did pander to the identity politics types far more in 2020, which was likely to his detriment.


Graymatter_Repairman

>A lot of it might apply to what I call institutional Democrats. These are liberals that tend to hold 1980s and 1990s Democratic values. They are the kind that more likely voted Biden, Pete or Amy in the primary. You might be filling in a motive where others motives may exist. Like they were the best candidates to win and Biden was the best among them. The further left of center they go the more the all important purple voters in purple states vote Republican. In reality Biden only won by 45,000 votes. Trump beat him with his 78,000.


readinreadin

Modern American liberals, or at least much of their leadership, disagree with 1, 21, and 23 as evidenced by race based affirmative action, talk about “hate speech” and the widespread approval of Hillary Clinton’s attendance at the anti-Mormon Broadway show. As for conservatives, they are in so much turmoil at this point that it is really hard to say. Many libertarian conservatives would certainly disagree with quite a few statements about the government having a responsibility to care for people and to prohibit discrimination. To the extent that people on both sides would say they agree with many points, they would be doing so with their own interpretations. For example, “Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work”. Is this “right” something the government must provide, or something the government can’t stop me from getting? What is “equal work” and who decides whether the work being done by two different people is “equal”?


sobedragon07

Eh Congressional investigative committees are not what the Jan 6 commission was about. That was SUPPOSED to be a bipartisan independent review of all the events regarding Jan. 6 so that it could be presented to the american public and Congress. Im pretty sure I WANT to know what happened January 6th when the former presidents supporters attacked and killed police officers in an attempt to not certify the election. Its kind of extremely important and these assholes in congress know it. We the people need to make it clear that this HAS TO HAPPEN. What i will say is i agree with most of this. They are real big on "everyone is entitled to their own opinion." Sure but if your opinion is all black people are inferior you are an asshole.


Bassoon_Commie

There are a few that I would claim liberals disagree with (and some that neither conservatives nor liberals agree with). Fundamentally, any position in the 39 points that undermines the authority of the ruling class and destroys the hierarchy, whether ruled by liberals or conservatives, is readily ignored, both historically and today. Neither side particularly agrees with #6- unless doing so benefits them. Wouldn't be nearly as much controversy over gun policy in the US. That, and if the US believed in it, it wouldn't have taken up arms in Vietnam, used COINTELPRO against the Black Panthers, and would be fighting in Syria. Nor would we have assisted dictators like Pinochet. Points #14 and 20 are also tied into the same particular issue, only desired when beneficial to those in power, and readily ignored historically. Our treatment of the indigenous peoples speaks for itself here. \#35 is contingent on points 6 and 20- if the will of the people desires the overthrow of the government because of its tyranny, but the government in question is either our own or one we're providing materiel aid to, then the revolt must be suppressed, because authority must be maintained. \#17 has been ignored historically by both sides. COINTELPRO ran without reservation under Republican and Democratic administrations. And while liberal politicians don't mind coopting communist language and ideas when they become popular, they'll ignore the parts that threaten their authority- workers bearing arms being one example among many. The workers owning the means of production is another easy one that they'll ignore. \#31 is straight-up ignored, judging by the nuclear arsenal, standing army, and police state that is still being managed. If they believed it was good, they'd ante up and disarm their own forces.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TruthOrFacts

Nobody is talking about throwing anyone in jail for their sexual orientation, or forcing sexual orientation upon someone. So I don't see how there is a conflict as you present it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Man_o_Gronks

I agree with all of these. As long as it remains clear that communists and other extremists (including people who want their religion to be codified into law) are only free to express these opinions, and that acting on them would be immoral


SDLRob

15 needs re-wording i think... but i agree with what it's trying to say... no one should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. ​ 2,12, 26 are all good in theory... problem is that it's now used to allow people to push dangerous rhetoric that harms themselves and others. Though that then brings up the question about what is right and wrong to say/teach/etc. ​ 28 is another one that i'd tweak the wording a little. I've always thought that if you are in jail at the time of an election or a referendum... then yes, you should lose the right to vote. If you are on parole or have served your sentence... then you should be allowed to vote. ​ 21 is an interesting one IMHO as a lot of people think that 'respecting' means not discussing part of a religion that is wrong.


linx0003

10: It should be: We have a duty to humankind; that is, to people in general. 15: "Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow persons of color the use of their facilities on the same basis as whites." 19: Corporal punishiment is wrong.


watchtheedge

I would qualify that 4 cuts both ways, modern liberals believe discrimination based on religious belief is wrong whether you are discriminating based on your religious beliefs, or based on the religious beliefs of others. I disagree wholeheartedly with 27 and I think that the left has moved with me, I don’t think that we can achieve representation without quotas, even though they were used to avoid representation at the time this was written. I would also quibble with the protecting juveniles from free speech, but I’m not sure if that’s me or the left in general.


cprenaissanceman

I think many of these principles still hold true to some degree in our public consciousness. I do think there are caveats and addenda to consider if you wanted a more complete picture of these ideas, but on the whole these seem fine. Personally, I’m not sure that this is necessarily a good benchmark about how liberalism or conservatism may have changed, especially since our usage and understanding of these terms and what they mean politically has likely very much changed since the 1960s. But I do think it definitely says a lot about the publication and perhaps, by proxy, something about it’s readership. And at least for this, I think it’s pretty clear that the national review’s readership has definitely changed, because many of them would disagree with a lot of these points. Now, I don’t actually know what this publication looks like in the past, so it’s potentially possible that it’s editorial lean has changed as well, but I have a hard time believing most people who regularly read the national review would agree with these points.


Old_Gringo

I would add one that was taken for granted in 1964 (or ignored in the case of Jim Crow): Each and every citizen over 18 has the right to vote without impediment in fair and free elections, and the result of those elections must be respected by all. The last numbers I saw had a quarter of the voting public still questioning last year's presidential election, and many prominent republicans calling for a coup d'etat to put Trump in the WH against the will of the people.


ninja-robot

Would agree with most. Some of it needs an update. I didn't see any references to sexual or gender identity, some of the communist/soviet union stuff is outdated, and I'm not sure a progressive income tax is the fairest anymore with the wealthy making their money through other methods.


JailCrookedTrump

I'm a leftist, idealogically closer to socialists than liberals, and I agree with most of these sentences except for these two that echoes each others; >12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong. >23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong. For one, harassment and defamation are both illegal speech when committed against individuals but it is legal to harass groups of people. It wouldn't be wrong to censor hate speech under that logic. Second, speakers promoting genocides and ethnic cleansings should also be censored even if the threat is not immediate. If humanity learned one thing from the 20th is how easily humans are influenced into murdering their neighbors. Talking about Germany obviously but also Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Russia etc Edit: forgot that one; >24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom. It seems like the lack of Congressional investigation is just as dangerous.


Arentanji

I don’t agree with 9, but I think it is because it is expressed as a legal and moral right. Sure, if reasonable compensation is given, and the owner is willing to sell. But if the owner doesn’t want to sell, I think the government should have to convince the citizens that the forced sale is acceptable. 15 should have the “southern” struck from it, 18 should be any nation.


stewartm0205

I have a problem with 19 and 27. Corporeal punishment is wrong for all. And 27, there is a need to educate all without regards to race and sex. Not sure how you do it without some sort of quota.


PsychLegalMind

Democratic beliefs tend to be by and large timeless and survive the passage of time. However, Number 15, was in reference to a specific period in time.