“Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
I have tried to define what political affiliation I have for some years now, mostly without real success, leading me to the conclusion I don’t really have one.
I mean, when it comes to social issues, I agree with many of the Democratic/labour points of view. On the issues of economics I align with the Conservative/Republican view of the world.
The fringe groups in between these I hardly ever pay much attention to, as, all my thoughts are very definitely right or left of the pack, and not very often sitting on the fence. Depending on the issue.
I fail to see how we can move forward without a social justice. I fail how we can be upstanding members of the community unless we are productive.
So I suppose the definition of a Liberal could also partially apply to my thinking…. Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values, even so, do not regard myself as remotely being a Liberal!
What strikes me as being odd is the intolerance that those that label themselves as ‘liberal’ have toward others that disagree with their views.
Where the most recent norm seems to be at Universities, to shout down or exercise obstruction to stop people they do not agree with……. taking the floor! thereby stifling the free speech that they profess to hold dear!
What is easily noticeable is the tack of groups that would otherwise by implication be termed as aggressive. They use a intelligent attack, forcing the frustration of their antagonist Liberals to become violent instead, IE…. no contact at all!
Those groups do not seem to argue with police, stick to the agreed demarcation lines, and do not invoke the wrath of the establishment by challenging police authority.
Nationalistic parties are getting very smart in all countries as well as popular. Just a few years back they were ostracized because of their aggressive behavior and today they are getting respectability.
Take Le pen in France, National Front in the UK, American Front. Once each were labelled with force to get their way, but now seem more approachable to the ideas of democracy, and in every case they are getting more votes.
That’s not of course an assumption that they are more reasonable, but as in all politics, they are putting across their view in the only way you can…… by appearing reasonable, as indeed…..is the only way you can become popular.
By contrast the ‘Liberals’ shout down the oppositions 1st amendment and in so many cases adopt passive obstruction.
This of course is a technique that major politicians practice in Filibustering a motion in the US that, where they have no chance of winning a debate can simply run the available time out on the clock for debate.
In an unsuccessful attempt to derail passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond made the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single senator, speaking for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes. (He was at this time a democrat)
Typically these filibusters could be talking about watching plants grow, or looking at paint dry. Some read the phone book, cite recipes for fried oysters, or read the Declaration of Independence.
Passive obstruction to move their case forward, or rather, not to move the case forward, and, as long as they stay conscious, and do not leave the floor they can keep on going, where only the length of time they can hold their bladder is their only limit.
The new liberal takes on a new extreme. For instance, in law you have to actually touch someone to commit assault, and yet finger pointing or getting in someones face, can be as close as you wish…….. as long as you do not actually touch.
If you were to apply this to your resident film star, politician, or a police officer…..go straight to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect 200! but to ordinary people in the street the Ultra Liberal can go to the limit of actual a minuscule distance from your face, and still claim they did not touch!
The provocation will go to any length such as spitting, tearing down legitimate signage etc to make you lose your cool and should you?….indeed you will go to jail!
As a young lad I learned this from first hand experience. I was at an English pub with my wife and was accused by a strange landlord of molesting her. (I had my hand around her waist) I drank up and left the establishment, swearing to myself that tomorrow….. I will fix this guy.
I spoke of the event to our local Confucius guy who was all wise and logical that I used to work with. He said what are you going to do to him when you go back. I told him that I was gonna thump him for embarrassing my wife so much.
He said just ask him WHY. Don’t touch him at all.
When I walked in the pub it was packed. “I wonder if I could just have a quiet word with you…….”… immediately the landlord went into a tirade where his face was turning blue and yelling at the top of his voice.
The event culminated in his own regulars berating him for being so nasty. I came out (if the truth were told I was asked to leave by him, or he was going to beat me up) feeling on top of the world…….. I was on top and won the event easily , with him looking foolish in front of all and sundry.
Passive resistance works, I would just question whether using it to obstruct the view of the other guy, is something that should be used by free thinking liberals who believe in everyone’s right to opinion.