Mediaboss Marketing

Liberalism can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from Classical liberalism. In this article the American political platform referred to as "liberal" within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in Europe and in other parliamentary democratic systems.

In the U.S. the word liberal is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the Democratic Party, that is, support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism, emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent, these days increasingly radical) rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper justification for law.

The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society." It also should be noted that a good portion of the Liberal economic philosophy has certain roots in the teachings of Karl Marx, such as the overall focus on social equality and the outrageous rejection of the Judeo-Christian morals. It should be noted, however, that Liberals are not pureblood communists: Unlike their redder brethren, Liberals are far more insidious and dangerous, as they have successfully infiltrated the American society and now threaten the American way of life.

The Democratic Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the civil rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

In Europe, liberalism refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to classical liberalism, and is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Because of this, the terms "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism", which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. "Conservative liberalism" simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as "law-and-order liberalism." Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American Republican Party. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the civil rights movement, when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the liberal Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

For more information please see: Nazism and socialism

The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.[9]

There is debate about the similarities between Nazism and socialism. Despite whether Nazism is socialist or not, they, with the help of general improvement of economic conditions in Europe, helped propel Germany out of the Great Depression with their economic policy.[10]

See also: Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism

Link:
Liberalism - Conservapedia

The latest tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail suggests the Liberals have a seven-point lead in the closing week of the federal election campaign.

Numbers released on Oct. 14 show:

Respondents were asked: "If a federal election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences?"

Nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and the Globe and Mail, released Oct. 14. (Nanos Research)

If Canadians were voting today, the most recent results suggest they would elect a Liberal minority government, pollster Nik Nanos told CTV News Channel on Wednesday.

"With a seven-point advantage, the Liberals are in very good shape," he said. "However, there's five days left and a lot could happen."

With the campaign in its final stretch, Nanos said it will be a challenge for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to close the gap between his party and the Liberals.

"Realistically, last week was the most important week for the ad campaign because we know that people make their decision over the holiday weekend," he said. "The numbers decidedly moved in favour of the Liberals last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday."

The late shift towards Liberal support means that Harper needs more than a well-run campaign to take the lead, Nanos said.

"He needs some massive, major misstep from either the Liberal campaign or (Liberal Leader) Justin Trudeau to try and turn the current trend."

Nanos said the NDP also faces an uphill battle in the coming five days.

After a strong start to the campaign, the party has fallen to third place in the most recent Nanos tracking, almost 12 percentage points behind the Liberals.

"The story for the NDP has been that there was a lot of good will on the front end of the campaign, but as it looked like the Liberals were the only party to challenge the Conservatives, people strategically voted," Nanos said.

"So it's not a repudiation on Thomas Mulcair and the NDP, just people seeing the Liberals as the vehicle for change."

Poll methodology

A national dual-frame (land and cell) random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign using live agents. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample composed of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error 1,096 decided voters is 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Regional Races:

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, while the Conservatives have the lead in the Prairie provinces.

According to Nanos, the Liberals' Ontario advantage could significantly impact the election results.

"We call it a killer province in terms of the outcome of the election," Nanos said on Wednesday. "Ontario made Stephen Harper a majority government last time, and right now the Liberals have a 12-point advantage."

Meanwhile, in Quebec, the latest numbers show a tight race between the NDP and Liberals.

Nanos said the Quebec tie is the result of a "massive drop" in support for the NDP in the province.

Earlier in the campaign, the NDP was polling at approximately 50 per cent support in Quebec, Nanos said, but more recently the party's fallen to 32.6 per cent, while the Liberals are at 30.5 per cent in the province.

British Columbia is also locked in a tie, with the Conservatives and Liberals both hovering around 30 per cent.

But, Nanos said, the "party to watch" in British Columbia is the fourth-place Greens, who are currently at 13.9 per cent support in the province.

"They've been doing better in the last three or four days," he said. "Perhaps Elizabeth May might have a little company, a B.C. seat-mate."

The most recent regional numbers:

Full poll at Nanos Research

Follow @niknanos on Twitter

More:
Nanos tracking: Liberals have 7-point lead in campaign's ...

Adding to our earlier commentary Iven Plis writing at the Daily Caller reports:

Reporters Asked Pope Francis About Being Communist. Heres What He Said

And to the accusations of communism, Francis said that I havent said anything more than whats written in the social doctrine of the Church. If there are mistakes in his teaching, the pope said, they are an error of explanation, not a flaw in the teaching itself.

He joked that he could gladly clear up any misconceptions about his Catholic bona fides: If necessary, Ill recite the creed.

People are using his ill-informed words to advocate for flesh and blood policy matters on climate and economies. He cannot abjure responsibility and joke about the seriousness of getting it right and not sowing confusion.

Patriot Post writer Nate Jackson had this commentary, set forth in its entirety here with permission.

Francis Confuses Corporatism and Capitalism

Pope Francis arrived Tuesday for his first visit to the U.S. He will not only tour a Philadelphia prison and a Harlem school to showcase his trademark concern for the poor and downtrodden, but he will give the first-ever papal address to Congress Thursday on a range of topics. The political angle is that Democrats have finally found a pope with whom they can agree on the issues of climate and poverty all while ignoring traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and the sanctity of life.

Francis arrived here by way of the Communist paradise poverty-stricken totalitarian island known as Cuba, where he spent four days and met not with dissidents but with Fidel Castro whom he reportedly thanked for his contributions to world peace. Notably, Francis arrived by plane, not by homemade raft on the shores of Florida as do many of the poor people fleeing Cubas oppressive regime for the Land of Liberty.

Indeed, if Francis truly cares for the poor, he showed it quite poorly in this instance.

Of capitalism in general, he said in his recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Such an economy kills.

Its no wonder he has an eager audience in the Democrats and Castros of the world.

But its important to understand that Francis views on capitalism are informed by his experience in his home country of Argentina a nation beset with powerful families and businesses influential in government. In other words, its not the free market and its not capitalism. Its cronyism and corporatism.

Its also ironic, writes Thomas Sowell, considering Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions [Francis] is now promoting around the world.

God does warn His people about loving money, and greed and inequity are part of sinful human nature no matter the economic system. But which countrys poor are better off Cubas, Argentinas or Americas? The truth is that no economic system has done more than capitalism to lift the poor out of poverty.

Tyranny kills, not Liberty.

Furthermore, Jesus never told his followers to perform charity by giving their money to the Romans instead. Contrary to the assertions of far too many, Jesus was not a socialist He always preached individual responsibility for our brothers and sisters, not collective statist mandates.

In many respects, Francis care for the poor is welcome. All Christians ought to see every opportunity to help the disadvantaged among us. But its the popes methods we object to. He is a proponent at least tacitly of liberation theology, a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity born in South America in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology embraces collectivization, the subordination of the individual in favor of the group, and the forced redistribution of wealth and property without fair compensation. Furthermore, Marxism is profoundly anti-religion, making its blending with Christian teaching like mixing oil and water.

Its noteworthy that Francis has thus effectively reversed the position of John Paul II, who was a staunch opponent of such noxious theology, and, together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, brought down the Soviet Empire. Try to imagine John Paul glad-handing Fidel Castro while dissidents languished in prison.

On the subject of climate change, the onerous regulations and top-down government solutions favored by Francis and his fellow alarmist travelers (and we do mean travelers in fuel-burning jets all over the world) are exactly the policies that will hurt the poor the most.

In his recent encyclical, Francis declared, The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. He blames the problem on consumerism, corporate greed, overreliance on technology and the poisonous political atmosphere in and among many nations. He called for a radial change in how people conduct their political and economic affairs and suggested that the time has come for each of us to alter our individual lifestyles in response to climate issues.

But The Wall Street Journal retorts, Well, he should have seen East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the air in Beijing today. Coercive governments are the worst befoulers of the environment. Democratic capitalism has created the wealth and electoral consent to clean the air and water, and only continued economic growth will create the resources to deal with climate change if it does become a serious threat to the Earth.

Francis says, Humanity is called on to be aware of the need to change lifestyles, production and consumption because the world is filled with a culture of waste. Were all for using energy judiciously and curbing waste, but not under the pretense of a UN-Vatican mandate, which is essentially the prescription Francis gives.

In short, while Francis has authority over doctrinal issues in his own church, his message on climate and economics is dead wrong and it should be rejected.

R Mall

Originally posted here:
Veritaspac.com | Defeating liberals /advocating a ...

New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer stole the headlines and put the White House on the defensive when he said he would vote against President Barack Obamas nuclear agreement with Iran.

But Obamas backstop in the House, where the Democratic Caucus is dominated by liberals, is holding firm.

Close to 40 House Democrats have come out in favor of the deal since it was first announced in mid-July, while 16 senators have voiced their support. And there are dozens of additional Democrats whove signaled in interviews and statements that they are inclined to back Obamas deal, which aims to stop Tehrans development of a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Most notably, not one of the 151 House Democrats who signed a May letter in support of the broad outlines of the agreement have announced opposition to the final product.

Obama needs at least 144 House Democrats to stick by him to sustain a veto of any GOP legislation that would undermine or dismantle the deal with Iran.

Growing Democratic support comes despite fierce opposition from Republicans and a huge, multimillion dollar effort by anti-deal groups like the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Republicans are planning to pass legislation this September that would disapprove of the deal and prevent the lifting of key sanctions, a move that would scuttle the agreement.

And opposition from Schumer is a significant blow for the administration, given his power and prominence in the party hes expected to be the leader of the Democratic Caucus after Harry Reid retires at the end of this Congress. But Schumers not expected to push other Democrats to oppose the deal. And even if enough swing Democrats followed Schumer and threatened to override a veto, the House would still serve as a bulwark for the agreement.

In the House, recent endorsements have come from the liberal wing of the party, including California Reps. Lois Capps, Doris Matsui and Mark Takano. Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz also announced his support this week.

This deal gives us the best chance we have had in years to halt the Iranian nuclear program, Walz said on Tuesday. It dismantles the progress they have made and opens up the country to strict inspections.

On Wednesday, Massachusetts Rep. Niki Tsongas voiced her support.

The consequences of rejecting this deal cannot be underestimated, leaving the United States isolated with no leverage and weakened alliances and credibility. Iran, already a nuclear threshold state, would be left unchecked with no reason to hold back its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Tsongas said.

So far, only nine House Democrats have come out against the deal but that number is likely to edge up slightly by the time the House holds its September vote. And Schumers opposition is a setback, particularly given how tight the Senate vote is expected to be.

POLITICO reported this week that Schumer has called 20 to 30 Democrats since he announced his opposition last week to explain why he cant support the deal. Sources said, however, that Schumer is promising not to whip lawmakers against the agreement.

And even Democrats who support the deal had some reservations; Matsui and Takano included broad criticisms of the deals framework in their announcements of support.

The deal is not perfect. No diplomatic endeavor ever results in an agreement wherein one side or the other gets everything it hoped for, Takano said. Iran has broken previous agreements, and we should be under no illusion that this deal means that they are now trustworthy or our friends.

But Takano added that having had family members affected by the atomic bombs that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II made him inclined to support the deal.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is more than sound policy; it is a moral imperative, he said.

The House and Senate are both expected to take up resolutions disapproving of the deal in mid-September when Congress returns from its five-week recess. The measures will likely pass, with nearly unanimous Republican support and some Democrats as well.

Obama has pledged to veto any legislation that stops the agreement from moving forward. It would then fall to either House or Senate Democrats to sustain that veto. Senior staffers in the House have predicted for weeks that lawmakers have the numbers to back Obama and prevent an override of his veto.

House lawmakers currently on record opposing the deal include Steve Israel of New York a leading Jewish lawmaker and Nita Lowey, Eliot Engel, Grace Meng and Kathleen Rice of New York, Albio Sires of New Jersey, Ted Deutch of Florida and Juan Vargas of California.

Iran is a grave threat to international stability. It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges, Engel said last week. We can have no doubt about the malevolent intent of a countrys leaders who chant Death to America and Death to Israel just days after concluding a deal.

Many lawmakers, including influential leaders, are still keeping their positions quiet. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is leading the whip operation for the deal in the House but her top lieutenants, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra are both publicly undecided.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, traveled to Israel over the August recess with a group of House Democrats and Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. On their visit, the lawmakers met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an ardent critic of the deal.

Hoyer didnt make any comments on the nuclear agreement while in Israel but released a jointly authored statement with McCarthy on Wednesday underlining congressional support for Israels security.

As we visited the towns of Ashkelon and Sderot near Gaza, we saw firsthand that without the Iron Dome, many more people would have lost their lives, the joint statement read. Congress stands united with Israel, not only in support of its Iron Dome defenses, but also in preserving Israels security and ensuring the safety of its people. In these dangerous times, Israel can always be certain that the American people are by their side.

Continue reading here:
Liberals poised to give Barack Obama a win on Iran - POLITICO

This article discusses liberalism as that term is used in the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. For the history and development of American liberalism, see Liberalism in the United States. For the origin and worldwide use of the term liberalism, see Liberalism.

Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It combines social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for minorities, legalized abortion on demand, support for same-sex marriage, and government programs such as education and health care.[1] It has its roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Conservatives oppose liberals on most (but not all) issues; the relationship between liberal and progressive is debated.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Keynesian economic theory has played a central role in the economic philosophy of modern American liberals.[8] The argument has been that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[8]

John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:[9][10]

"...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the peopletheir health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil libertiessomeone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 defined a liberal party as one

"which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controlsto ensure to the average person the right to his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[11]

Modern American liberals value institutions that defend against economic inequality. In The Conscience of a Liberal Paul Krugman writes: "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."[12] Liberals often point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World WarII.[13][14] They believe liberty exists when access to necessities like health care and economic opportunity are available to all,[15] and they champion the protection of the environment.[16][17] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party, as modern American conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party.[18]

Liberalism is one of the dominant ideologies of the United States, but remains well behind conservatism in popularity among voters. In the 2012 election, 25% of voters who went to the polls identified themselves as liberals.[19][20] In the November 2014 House elections liberals comprised 23% of the voters, and conservatives 37%.[21] A January 2015 poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that 26% of all adults considered themselves either very liberal or somewhat liberal compared with 34% who considered themselves either very conservative or somewhat conservative.[22] Also in the same month, Gallup recorded that liberal self-identification reached a record high of 24% in their poll.[23]

In early 21st century political discourse in the United States, liberalism has come to include support for reproductive rights for women, including abortion,[24] affirmative action for minority groups historically discriminated against,[25]multilateralism and support for international institutions,[26] support for individual rights over corporate interests,[27] support for universal health care for Americans (with a "single payer" option), support for gay rights and marriage equality, and opposition to tax cuts for the rich.[28]

See the original post:
Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the ...