Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

How Liberals Are The New Autocrats
Progressives may preach the joys of localism, but the trend in government is all the other way in everything from climate change to the economic complexion of your neighborhood.

The End of Localism

This could be how our experiment with grassroots democracy finally ends. World leaders—the super-rich, their pet non-profits, their media boosters, and their allies in the global apparat—gather in Paris to hammer out a deal to transform the planet, and our lives. No one asks much about what the states and the communities, the electorate, or even Congress, thinks of the arrangement. The executive now presumes to rule on these issues.

For many of the world’s leading countries—China, Russia, Saudi Arabia—such top down edicts are fine and dandy, particularly since their supreme leaders won’t have to adhere to them if inconvenienced. But the desire for centralized control is also spreading among the shrinking remnant of actual democracies, where political give and take is baked into the system.


The will to power is unmistakable. California Governor Jerry Brown, now posturing as the aged philosopher-prince fresh from Paris, hails the “coercive power of the state” to make people live properly by his lights. California’s high electricity prices, regulation driven spikes in home values, and the highest energy prices in the continental United States may be a bane for middle and working class families, but are sold as a wonderful achievement among our presumptive masters.........................

Some leading progressives, like Nation contributor and Bay Area activist Zelda Bronstein, attack the growth of regional governments, designated to force compliance with state and federal mandates, as fundamentally undemocratic, embracing “insular, peremptory style of decision making.” Even millennials, who have tended to the left, are skeptical about over-centralized government. A recent National Journal poll, showed that they, like most Americans, are not enamored of top-down solutions: less than a third favor federal over locally-based solutions.

Simply put, there is no huge appetite for ever expanding federal power among the majority of the populace. What is missing, outside of nihilistic opposition to all government, is a strong movement advocating for more authority in the hands of local communities, families, and volunteer organization. This does not necessarily mean a decline in environmental standards, since most people care most about the places where they and their families reside. Even with climate change, a carbon tax could be approved without adopting the California formula of ever more mega-regulations covering virtually every aspect of life.

As Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, the genius of this republic lies not in its central state, but in its dispersion, voluntary association, and ideological diversity. If we undermine the legacy of our federal structure to something more akin to that, say, of France or Russia, the United States could no longer play its historic role as a rare beacon of independence and self-government in a world increasingly dominated by various manifestations of centralized tyranny.

kalm wrote:BTW, I wish we had more truly partisan lefties on here

CID1990 wrote:A slide to autocracy is the natural state of affairs for the statist left and the religious right.

They both increasingly seek to restrict liberty when they realize they are a minority.

The natural state of man is one of freedom. We only give that up by being coerced.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:A slide to autocracy is the natural state of affairs for the statist left and the religious right.

They both increasingly seek to restrict liberty when they realize they are a minority.

The natural state of man is one of freedom. We only give that up by being coerced.

Succinctness admired.

Although I'd also throw greed in there somewhere as well and it can come from both sides.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Succinctness admired.

Although I'd also throw greed in there somewhere as well and it can come from both sides.

greed is the motivation of the altruistic left?

tell me more, Karl

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
greed is the motivation of the altruistic left?

tell me more, Karl

No, Howard, greed can be a motivation toward autocracy in general. See oligarchies, monopolies, there's a **** ton of examples.

(This is what I get for paying you a compliment)

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No, Howard, greed can be a motivation toward autocracy in general. See oligarchies, monopolies, there's a **** ton of examples.

(This is what I get for paying you a compliment)

youve gone off the rails

greed doesnt motivate ideologues

that comes after they have already achieved power. Im talking about political power

what motivates the Marxist/religious zealot who thinks we should all think like him and therefore behave like him?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No, Howard, greed can be a motivation toward autocracy in general. See oligarchies, monopolies, there's a **** ton of examples.

(This is what I get for paying you a compliment)

youve gone off the rails

greed doesnt motivate ideologues

that comes after they have already achieved power. Im talking about political power

what motivates the Marxist/religious zealot who thinks we should all think like him and therefore behave like him?

CID1990 wrote:A slide to autocracy is the natural state of affairs for the statist left and the religious right.

They both increasingly seek to restrict liberty when they realize they are a minority.

The natural state of man is one of freedom. We only give that up by being coerced.

JohnStOnge wrote:Liberalism ultimately requires autocracy.

and yet the fundamental idea of our country "Democratic Republic" is an extremely liberal idea...

Imagine that John...
There was apparently one good liberal idea

JohnStOnge wrote:

and yet the fundamental idea of our country "Democratic Republic" is an extremely liberal idea...

Imagine that John...
There was apparently one good liberal idea

I was using "Liberalism" in the sense that it tends to be used today. Really all "liberal" means is being willing to change the status quo. In one sense people we call "conservatives" in today's context are "liberal" in the sense that they want to change the status quo. In that sense wanting to change things so that the Federal government has minimal power and authority is "liberal." Something like saying one thinks that an employer should be free to discriminate on the basis of race is also "liberal." But most would never call it that because when they're thinking "liberal" they're really thinking of the kind of egalitarianism that's taken hold.

It might be better to identify what we tend to call "liberal" kind of an egalitarian socialism. And it ultimately it's realization requires autocracy. Or at least it requires powerful and centralized government. Like for instance it requires that government go so far as to tell someone who owns a business that they are not free to enter into employer/employee relationships as they choose to. They must follow the egalitarian rules. That is an incredible government intrusion into personal decision processes that we largely take for granted.

liberalism
noun lib·er·al·ism \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\

Simple Definition of liberalism

: belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress

Full Definition of liberalism
1: the quality or state of being liberal

2:
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

JohnStOnge wrote:

and yet the fundamental idea of our country "Democratic Republic" is an extremely liberal idea...

Imagine that John...
There was apparently one good liberal idea

I was using "Liberalism" in the sense that it tends to be used today. Really all "liberal" means is being willing to change the status quo. In one sense people we call "conservatives" in today's context are "liberal" in the sense that they want to change the status quo. In that sense wanting to change things so that the Federal government has minimal power and authority is "liberal." Something like saying one thinks that an employer should be free to discriminate on the basis of race is also "liberal." But most would never call it that because when they're thinking "liberal" they're really thinking of the kind of egalitarianism that's taken hold.

It might be better to identify what we tend to call "liberal" kind of an egalitarian socialism. And it ultimately it's realization requires autocracy. Or at least it requires powerful and centralized government. Like for instance it requires that government go so far as to tell someone who owns a business that they are not free to enter into employer/employee relationships as they choose to. They must follow the egalitarian rules. That is an incredible government intrusion into personal decision processes that we largely take for granted.

not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted

belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:BTW, I wish we had more truly partisan lefties on here

JohnStOnge wrote:Chizz, the move to the idea of a Democratic Republic was a move towards decreasing the power of government. It would not be viewed as "liberal" in the way most people understand "liberalism" today. But it obviously was "liberalism" in the sense that it was a change from the established order.

JohnStOnge wrote:Chizz, the move to the idea of a Democratic Republic was a move towards decreasing the power of government. It would not be viewed as "liberal" in the way most people understand "liberalism" today. But it obviously was "liberalism" in the sense that it was a change from the established order.

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote:

I saw that to and thought "da fuck?"

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I saw that to and thought "da ****?"

Is anyone other than Dback supporting or voting for Hillary?

Quick...count all the liberal autocratic backlash posts there are in this thread.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Chizz, the move to the idea of a Democratic Republic was a move towards decreasing the power of government. It would not be viewed as "liberal" in the way most people understand "liberalism" today. But it obviously was "liberalism" in the sense that it was a change from the established order.

We understand the anguish and suffering you've experienced in keeping this response under three pages long and we sincerely appreciate your effort.