[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

Classical definitions. By those, sure, I'm happy to be called a liberal. A Washington/Hamilton/Lincoln liberal. But by those definitions, Ayn Rand would be a liberal, too; she sure hated the status quo.

I wouldn't call Alexander Hamilton a classical liberal. He was all about big government and regulation.

Off topic, albeit, but I would suggest "Randians" largely misinterpret Rand. Rand, I would agree, was a sort of classical liberal, with the exception that a Randian-world is one of segregation. But her modern-day proponents act something more like Brown Shirt fascists. That is another debate...

Psudo wrote:

Also, a trivial bit: my name is spelled without an e.

The "Lummy" bit was a nice touch. Touché.

[KyleEverett]

I don't really understand the opposition to Elena Kagan, she isn't going to really change the court. I expect the older liberal members of the court to retire soon, especially if it appears that Obama may not make it to a 2nd term. They waited 8 years for Bush to be out of office just so they could ensure the balance of the court wouldn't change anymore than it had. If one of the Justice's on the right had retired then I could understand your complaint and would hope that Obama would pick a centrist rather than someone far on the left, but in this case, its about maintaining the status quo.

Now when it comes to political labels, today's Conservatism in the USA combines the attractive Liberalism economics with the decidedly unattractive social conservatism. I consider myself Libertarian leaning, I believe in a regulated capitalist system, and little government control over social issues. The fact I give social issues more value than economic ones is what makes me lean Democratic in most elections. The Republican party tries to appease the social conservatives far more than I can stomach.

While I would love to let the economy to regulate itself, it has shown over and over again that it won't do it, which is why its up to the people through the government to force them to. I'd hope people agree that free market certainly didn't give the people any help when it came to banking and speculation.

I could get into my ideas about economic policies and how they are used to flatten the boom and bust cycle, but I think I'm off topic enough.

[Psudo]

Lemmy wrote:

I wouldn't call Alexander Hamilton a classical liberal. He was all about big government and regulation.

I thought of him as a strong advocate of private economic prosperity as an alternative to elaborate social controls as a means of securing institutional success. Is that wrong or non-liberal?

Lemmy wrote:

a Randian-world is one of segregation.

I don't think that's true.

KyleEverett wrote:

its about maintaining the status quo.

Hahaha!

[KyleEverett]

Psudo wrote:

KyleEverett wrote:

its about maintaining the status quo.

Hahaha!

I'll bite, how does Elena Kagan replacing Stevens change anything? The last Justice retiring that mattered anything was O'Conner during George W. Bush's term that was coupled with Rehnquist's death that moved the court to the right. I'd only agree you have a valid criticism if Kagan was replacing something like Scalia or another member of the right.

Do you really expect Obama to not stick to his ideological guns like Bush did? Did you criticise his appointments of Roberts and Alito for being purely political rather than by legal qualification alone? Or that he caved to pressure from his base because Harriet Miers was a risk to the Republican purity?

[Psudo]

Lemmy and I were just discussing status quo. He thought of conservatives as it's advocates and liberals as it's opponents, whereas I thought both advocated for change (liberals for quick change, conservatives for gradual) and there was no significant support for the status quo. You then opine that a liberal supporting a liberal was an action supporting the status quo, thus throwing a wrench into that line of thought. I thought it was an intentional joke; wordplay on the multiple contexts of what "status quo" is.

If either Lemmy or I are right, a liberal on the bench would be an act for change of society's status quo. Even if it keeps the makeup of the court the same next year as last, that only means the rate of society's change remains mostly constant.

If you consider the Bush administration to have loaded the courts with conservatives, that means each SCOTUS appointment was decreasing the rate of court-sponsored social change. Thus, considering society's rate of change rather than whether it changes per ce, putting a liberal in after two consecutive conservatives is also leveling off a trend rather than continuing it. It does, however, continue the trend of partisan ideological litmus tests for SCOTUS appointees.

So what is "status quo" exactly?

Isn't that funny? Or is it just me?

[KyleEverett]

I suppose it depends on the frame of reference. I figure you guys were arguing over the overall societal impact while I was looking merely at the court composition. Given how political views govern appointments these days, it'd take a major event that caused the resignation or death of multiple Justices at one time to allow a major change in the court balance. That or a period of like 16 years of one party holding the presidency.

I'd rather have 5-4 decisions with a moderate being the deciding vote then a lopsided court.

[BartSimpson]

KyleEverett wrote:

I'll bite, how does Elena Kagan replacing Stevens change anything?

Because Kagan's leanings will polarize the court more than it already is.

Stevens was a liberal and Kagan is a liberal, lesbian, socialist whose opinions will predictably draw the polarity of the liberal-left wing of the court further to the left. Such things do not happen in a vacuum and the result will be future conservative appointees who will be further to the right in polarity than the current crop of conservatives.

The USA is polarized enough without this.

[KyleEverett]

She wrote her thesis in college on socialism, she would've been what, in her 20s then? I doubt she's still a socialist if she ever was. Her thesis adviser himself told the New York times that she was merely interested in the subject, not that she approved of it. I enjoy reading about medieval monarchies, does that mean I'm a supporter of a hereditary leader with absolute power?

Also, she is not a lesbian, or if she is she hasn't come out yet and her sexuality has no bearing on her suitability as a Justice. Please do not use someone's inferred sexuality as an attack, because it just shows how little you actually look into things.

The most telling thing about her nomination is that the most left-wing of the party is disappointed in her. A slim paper trail of political opinions and even some that put her more in the middle. A candidate that makes both extremes unhappy is a solid choice in my opinion.

[CKASlacker]

Now I'm a little confused Psudo. Earlier in this thread you wrote:

Psudo wrote:

I'm talking of modern liberals as a philosophy that falls approximately center-left on the left/right spectrum, the modern incarnation of the anti-establishment, socially-concerned philosophy enshrined by Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR.

So (forgive the math-speak): Jefferson = Lincoln = FDR = modern liberal. Cool. But then:

Psudo wrote:

Classical definitions. By those, sure, I'm happy to be called a liberal. A Washington/Hamilton/Lincoln liberal.

So Washington = Hamilton = Lincoln = liberal. By the transitive property then, liberal = Jefferson = Hamilton (?!).

I think we can both agree on the ludicrousness of that. They accused each other (perhaps unfairly) or being a monarchist on one side, and advocate of bloody insurrection on the other.

HBO's "John Adams" put it nicely when Washington said of his first cabinet: "Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson cannot agree on anything."

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

I thought of him as a strong advocate of private economic prosperity as an alternative to elaborate social controls as a means of securing institutional success. Is that wrong or non-liberal?

The scope of privacy then was much different from now. But Hamiliton believed in regulated markets and big government AGES before they were a reality. "Laissez-faire" was not his approach. He may well have been a social liberal, but certainly not a fiscal liberal.

psudo wrote:

don't think that's true.

I didn't mean racial segregation but idealogical segregation.

[Psudo]

CKASlacker, two different definitions of "liberal". Lincoln belongs on both lists, but that doesn't mean everyone in one should be in both. Even so, people tell me Hamilton doesn't belong in the list at all.

Modern: Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR. Social freedom is sacrosanct, while economic freedom is a lesser priority.
Classical: Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln. Government powers should exist, but should not overwhelm personal freedoms. A distinction between social and economic freedom is not explicitly necessary.

Hamilton was for "big government" in the sense that he was for more government than the Articles of Confederation, that powerless waste of energy. I don't think that's the same kind of big government as the 20th century definition. I think of him being for "enough government", but it seems to be an unpopular viewpoint. Maybe I'm wrong.

If you're dead set on math symbols, here's set logic notation:
Lincoln ∈ (Modern ∩ Classical)
Modern ≢ Classical

Lemmy, what is ideological segregation? Disallowing Communists in political office?

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

Lemmy, what is ideological segregation? Disallowing Communists in political office?

Rand was a Utopian. Those not sharing her political beliefs would not be invited to participate in her society. They'd build their own republic, just a little farther out west. In a modern context, Randians have even proposed building their own society on a man-made island. Kooks.

[Psudo]

Was she a Utopian? Many of her followers are, sure. And there is a Utopian element to Atlas Shrugged. But in her own life, she lived in, identified with, and tried to influence the greater culture around her rather than isolating herself from it. I don't think she actually advocated any of that kooky isolationism like one sees in, say, the Plymouth Colony Puritans, the Mennonites, or Brigham Young's Mormon Exodus.

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

Was she a Utopian? Many of her followers are, sure. And there is a Utopian element to Atlas Shrugged. But in her own life, she lived in, identified with, and tried to influence the greater culture around her rather than isolating herself from it. I don't think she actually advocated any of that kooky isolationism like one sees in, say, the Plymouth Colony Puritans, the Mennonites, or Brigham Young's Mormon Exodus.

I don't think Rand would advocate much of what Randians advocate. But I do think she was a Utopian. "Ideal society" is an element of both her fiction and her non-fiction. Given her childhood experiences, that's not surprising. We digress.

[Psudo]

Perhaps you're right. I haven't read her non-fiction.