Is Liberalism (and Conservatism) Intellectually Bankrupt?

[DKW 86 7,410]

This is a start on how i really feel about modern political parties. They shift stances in response to shifting dynamics of the debate. Read it and please see what the author says. I totally agree on two points:

1) The parties are both identical on being controlled these days by Oligarchies. People like Koch & Steyer own both parties and it isnt a good thing for either party.

2) Both parties are identical on shifting their core identities to suit the moment, not any real plan or ideology.

Goodman puts forth the idea that it is sociology more than ideology that drives America's two parties these days.

AGAIN, He and I think that this is reflected in BOTH DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES.

I dont think Kennedy nor Reagan would be happy with where their parties have gone since the 90s.

http://townhall.com/...34060/page/full

Howard Dean, who is thought to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, told reporters the other day that he supports our policy of using drones to kill people (and all those who happen to be near them) without warning. He also has no objection to the National Security Agency listening to his phone calls and monitoring his email.

Donny Deutsch, the reliable voice of the left on "Morning Joe," told TV viewers that he supports the CIA’s torture activities – recently revealed in a Senate committee report....

-------------------------

How do we explain all this? In "What Is A Progressive?" I proposed part of the answer: liberalism is sociology rather than an ideology. The same can be said of conservatism.

-------------------------

The problem for Democrats is that the party is increasingly ruled by the “new oligarchs.” In his review of The New Class Conflict, by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat, George Will explains that there is a:

"growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power. In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America's 10 wealthiest counties."

Unfortunately for party harmony, the oligarchs are basically anti-job creation and anti-economic growth – which they see both as a threat to the environment and a threat to their life style. This puts them squarely at odds with the working class voters who used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party.

As I explained in “How Liberals Live,” once the plutocrats settle in a community like Boulder, Colorado or Portland, Oregon, they become fiercely anti-development and doggedly determined to shape their community in ways that price the middle class out of the housing market. As a result, wherever wealthy liberals tend to congregate, housing is more expensive and there is more inequality. Again from Will:

In New York, an incubator of progressivism, Kotkin reports, the "wealthiest one percent earn a third of the entire city's personal income -- almost twice the proportion for the rest of the country." California, a one-party laboratory for progressivism, is home to 111 billionaires and the nation's highest poverty rate (adjusted for the cost of living)….

-------------------------

We have already seen how powerful the oligarchs can be in the case of the vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Senate Democrats were so kowtowed by one billionaire (Steyer) environmentalist that they gave up (gave up even one more) senate seat and voted against the labor unions – their traditional core constituency.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Morally and ethically maybe. Intellectually? No, I think the majority of them know exactly what they are doing.

[cooltigger21 0]

You're talking about parties and not ideologies. Those are two different things entirely. Liberalism, whether you want to call it ideology or sociology, is and always has been bankrupt. It's always been about the state and the elites running things It has always believed the ordinary man was not capable of running his own life. It was about that from the beginning as far back as Teddy Roosevelt. Yes Reagan would be disappointed in the republican party. They have strayed from their conservative principles and are now simply what you would call democrat lite. The elites or what used to be called the blue blood republicans hated Reagan. He swept the party into power so they tolerated him but they've always been about elitism. It's washington vs. the country not democrat vs. republican. Just look at the way the republicans have already caved in barely a month from a landslide victory.

[autigeremt 6,560]

Morally and ethically maybe. Intellectually? No, I think the majority of them know exactly what they are doing.

Going back.....wayyyyy back..... it's gone! Grand Slam!!!