Here's my biggest issue with what I see from the Left. The Left says to the Non Left, "When you have power over me, I ask you for mercy. And, since mercy is in your nature you grant it to me. When I have power over you, you ask me for mercy. But, mercy is not in my nature and I do not grant it to you."
I have lots of problems with the left but that characterization is totally false. The right has just as many rigid and unreasonable people who are tribal and extreme.
Language matters. And groups have been hijacking words at an astonishing rate over the past 50 years, The 'classical liberal' has way more in common with today's American conservative than they have with today's American liberal / left.
@@FazeParticles I was going to bring that up. The Progressives intentionally rebranded themselves as Liberals post-WWII, hijacking a term that meant something totally different from what they stand for.
"Classical Liberals" are and always been Conservatives. Liberty is paramount in all decisions. For example, does this proposed law increase or decrease an individual's liberty. Individuals are more important than the collective. Also, classical liberals have always been wary of giving government control of pretty much anything. Because some modern day Liberals are finding themselves removed from their collective, they say "oh the Liberal movement today is not what I signed up for." Yes, yes, it is. They held that the government is the only thing that can "fix" social problems. They held that the collective is more important than the individual. They held that safety was more important than liberty.
@@kenelmtonkin1 when asked "what is liberalism" he brought up his fdr loving mother and his talks about chomsky with his father. then he immediately said, "there was liberal and left overlap." he even included che guevara in this group. tbh i find todays victimhood culture waaaaaaay less objectionable than traditional democrats who are sympathetic to murderous marxists
The confusion around the terms “liberal” and “left” in America comes from the old centrist paradigm of center left (liberals) and center right (conservatives). But those two groups of people were both centrists. In today’s America, that old paradigm is meaningless. Because “left” today means actual leftist. As in some form of Marxist (Communist, Socialist, Maoist, Neo-Marxist). There is nothing liberal about a Marxist. A liberal is an individualist. Whether Classical Liberal or Social Liberal, still an individualist. A Marxist is a collectivist. All American liberals would be labelled “Rightists” and then sent to the reeducation work camp in Maoist China. Because everyone not far left is a rightist. Period. A liberal is not a leftist. A liberal is a centrist in terms of world government and economic politics on the horseshoe chart. Liberals believe in liberty. Leftists believe in authority. Which is just another” word for tyranny.
I think one problem is we still try to put all positions on a straight line from extreme left to extreme right. I think the model needs updating. Maybe a circle, or a tree, or a bubble diagram would be a better illustration of real life positions.
Very well stated. People don’t understand that conservatives in America are actually extremely liberal by global standards. Conservatives in America are actually liberals. Classical liberals. Libertarians. The Democratic Party and their platform today is more to the left than some of the most radical political parties in Europe. Have always been rather central. The New York Times even that story about this 10 years ago they show that Republicans have never as a party platform steered very far from the middle and that they are closer to the middle today than ever and this was 10 years ago is even more moderate today than back then. In fact, take away all the bullshit from the media and listen to what Marjorie Taylor Greene actually thinks and believes and she sounds exactly like Donald Trump and Donald Trump sounds exactly like Bill Clinton back in 1992 and similar to Barack Obama in 2008. The left, the progressives, have been playing the slow game since the late 1800s, but they started moving more to the left especially the media and the culture under Bill Clinton, which was really Hillary Clinton pushing that and then completely sold out under Barack Obama. These people are in fact, socialist and fascists, which is left with audiology despite what people are taught , because they are absolutely authoritarians as stated. FDR was a socialist and very, very much a collectivist and sympathetic to the Soviet union and Joseph Stalin. Winston Churchill could not get FDR to see how corrupt and evil communism and Joseph Stalin were. The goal of the left is like he stated, fascism, communism, collectivist authoritarianism, and the roadmap is Saul’s Alinsky , rules radicals.
Because in America we use the terms liberal and conservative different than the rest of the Western world. The most conservative person in America is still a classical liberal by global standards. That’s why conservatives and libertarians are called classical liberals. Liberalism in the western sense is about the individual not collectivism. And of course the water gets ever muddier when people start distinguishing cultural vs. political left & right. But Andrew Breibart was correct was correct when he said politics is downstream of culture. This is why the right has been losing for decades. Because most people are more socially liberal, but culturally economically politically conservative, but that’s impossible to be these days now that the test taken control of our schools now if you’re socially liberal, you’re gonna be politically liberal because they make it About human rights, which is ridiculous. I was saying back in the 80s that people on the right needed to start fighting but everyone thought it was crazy. When political correctness started in the 1990s, some of us knew exactly where this was going and tried to warn people, but no one wanted to listen.
I love Michael Shellenberger's work. But, hang on: How is FDR a classical liberal? FDR was a semi-fascist. Classical liberalism was a a 19th century thing. It's Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. FDR was a progressive. Progressivism derived from German conservative statism.
There was nothing "semi" about FDR's fascism. He was a full-out fascist socialist. Instead of laying the blame of the Great Depression at the feet of the Federal Reserve where it belonged, he blamed businesses and market instability. To counter this false accusation, FDR instituted numerous State agencies to control business and the People. He even criticized SCOTUS for not "going along" with his fascistic policies (the 3-horse analogy). He wasn't as bad as Mussolini or Hitler; however, he did begin this monstrous federal government we have today: the antithesis of conservativism.
Well I am not that familiar with him or his work but he seriously needs a history lesson, he is just blatantly wrong about what right and left meant in France, it was about the Kings right to veto not free speech and it happened before the revolution not after. He then says FDR democrats were pro rights of minorities, ignoring the fact that a whole lot of southern democrats who supported segregation were also new deal democrats and helped him stay in office. He then says the left defended free speech in the 80's and 90's when in fact the lefts morale brigade against offensive language began in the 1970's and that they try pushing this controlled language on us once every decade or so each time getting more and more abrasive and demanding in their appeals. He makes some good points, but in my opinion it seems he wants to look at US liberalism and the democratic party of the previous 100 years with rose colored glasses, as if things have just gotten rotten recently, no they have been rotten for a long time and its not just the democrats to blame, they are half to blame for it, you have to look over to the other side to find the other responsible party.
@bartoszlubczonok2941. Very astute observation there, my friend. In fact, there are surviving letters where FDR professes his respect an admiration for Adolf Hitler. Many leading progressives in the US and Britain thought Hitler was the cat’s meow. In spite of the absurdities of the Left’s rewritten histories, the Fascists are not on the American political Right. The fascists are, and always have been, the Right hand of Leftism.
There’s confusion in terminology. It might be better to refer to classic liberal, to refer to e.g., RFK Jr or JFK. As you say, classical liberalism is really libertarianism. Or more precisely there was classical liberalism - Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, people like that - and derivatives would be libertarianism on the one hand and Ayn Rand's Objectivism on the other.
It gets old listening to these converts from the Left talk about how the Left used to be about free speech. That's never been true. The Left, even the American Left, has always been about imposing policy and oppressing dissent. FDR was the closest we've had to dictator. After the crisis years of the Depression and the war, the country turned against the obvious authoritarianism of international communism in the 50's. The communist professors and students of the 60's used calls of free speech as a tactic. They wanted to crack the defenses against their brand of tyranny by making themselves into victims of repression. They never believed in it as a principle. That's the point of Repressive Tolerance. The Left is collectivist, and it's impossible to create collective action when people are pulling in different directions. You've got to get everyone on the same page to get them moving the way you want, which means suppressing calls to do anything other than what the leaders of the collective decide is best.
A massive part of the problem is that most people don't even understand what Liberalism is or where it came from. I mean, I almost never hear anyone bring up and note the distinction between English Liberalism and continental (French) Liberalism - cause that's what's really at the heart of the matter. They are absolutely not the same thing and yet people treat them interchangeable. The French revolution and it's ideas were some of the worst things to happen to Europe, and the world by extension.
A certain part of the left has been pro-free speech at least ex ante their being in power. Once in power the nature of collectivism will force even previously pro-speech leftists to be anti-free speech.
The division between left and right is wrong. The "cut" is more clearly made between those who value truth vs those who value power. Look at the results and not how it is presented. For instance, the rabid anti gaming moms and action groups craving censorship (right) or the reverence of Che (left), who enjoyed unsubscribing people are both examples of people who worshiped power over others and see truth as an occasionally useful tool.
There's quite a difference between identifying dangers to children and suppressing the civil liberties of adults, which do not include reducing other adults to breeders with no authority over their own offspring.
@@annatardlordofderps9181 Yes, but there is a difference between "valuing the power to uphold the truth" because you fundamentally value the truth by itself, and valuing truth only as a useful instrument for the purpose of wielding power. Not embracing power as the ultimate goal doesn't equate to relinquishing all opportunities to exert power. The issue is to exert power responsibly at the service of a higher value. There is room for being authoritative without being authoritarian.
Just keep an eye out for many maga people being anti-free trade. Lots of people are now blaming free exchange for economic problems, instead of government regulations. Look up the Smoot-Hawley tariff and how it caused the great depression.
@@Bailiol He actually was very violent before his prison sentence (and maybe during). The ANC had a militant terrorist arm that did some horrific things, and Mandela's implicated in a lot of it.
@@Bailiol Tell that to the random civilians and trains stations he bombed. Nelson Mandela may be the most thorough white-washing of a persons history, ever.
historically if we use the founding fathers' standards you're all gay liberals even me and that's a bloody shame. if we can even get back to JFK style liberalism i think society would be healthy.
Wow, this is me. These people are talking about me! I thought I was a liberal until about 3-4 years ago. I'm definitely not right wing, my wife is an immigrant!
@@ratttttyyy immigrants are a cause of many problems due to their sheer numbers, as well as most refusing to learn or speak English. They drive down wages and drive up housing costs. But this at the end of the day is really at the fault of government and their lobbyists advocating for endless streams of cheap labor.
FDR pushed for the largest expansion of the federal government since the Civil War, undermined or directly violated the Bill of Rights multiple times, threatened to pack the SCOTUS with his cronies if they called any of his unconstitutional programs what they were, and bought repeated reelection by creating social programs to make poor people dependant on the government... I think he confused "liberal" with "socialist". That said, I despised labeling large groups "leftist" or "rightist", since those are story ambiguous and shift definitions often.
@@missano3856 You mean the war that was easily avoidable by not collectively punishing all of Germany into the ground, giving rise to the Nazis? The war that the FDR took the most credit for while the USSR put in the most work? Yeah, sure thing, boss. There's no such thing as an "unambiguously good war", except when reading propaganda.
@@missano3856There's no such thing as a "good war". Fact is that the allied powers created the environment that brought Hitler into power and then after the war created the framework of the military industrial complex (by paying industrial companies to help rebuild the war devastated areas). So, no, not everything is so cut and dry.
Yep ...i really sat up when Michael said "they considered" themselves ( speaking of his parents ) ..middle class ...it has to do with different levels of poverty , which is a whole conversation thats not being had ..
To me, conservatism means to be faithful to the original ideas brought forth by our founders, the very thing that made us great. A liberal wants to progress but often it’s not in tune with the original ideals so why would we listen to them when we have the great thinkers who built our country?
'coded' doesn't always mean accurate, but that broader normie culture accepts it as such. I remember in the early 2000's H. Clinton rallying against violent video games in light of some shootings, and my Californian co-workers couldn't (or refused) to see the dissonance between that stance and free speech.
In your categorization of “broader normie culture,” I really don’t think there’s a distinction between right and left, do you? I mean, law/order types screaming about NWA and Bodycount, and the lefties screaming about misogynistic lyrics, (and the video games you mentioned..) with the more Libertarian amongst us left scratching their heads in bemusement…. Or was that confusion? Either way, not particularly thrilled with either rationale..
the 80's and earlier was gay as well. scantily clad muscly men is gay. people are so full of shid pretending like we haven't been a progressive cesspool of a nation for 3 generations now is plain BS. of course we have.
7 місяців тому
@@dachief6470Both are pro government. They just want theirs.
Not to mention how he brings up FDR democrats and how they believed in helping the little guy and minorities, sure some did but many of the segregationist democrats of the south were also new deal democrats and that helping the little guy came with a big race requirement.
The government has no business getting involved in charity. They can only take your money (by force or the threat of force) to give it to others. Why would we think they would be good at helping others in this way, even if we were stupid enough to assume their benevolence ?
Born and raised in Massachusetts. Ive always been liberal but the shift happened during covid and continues. Have I changed or has the left changed? Ive held the same beliefs throughout but now Im right wing? lol Interesting times.
What a shithole. Literally every law and policy now comes directly from the WEF, no one on Beacon Hill cares about what regular people need or think. Oh look, another way for Karens to control your personal life like you live in a communist countr, while moral grandstanding about everything.
Same same same like holy s***I stayed on the same line and these people have gone completely.Like off to the they did us hard left turn and wearing all just like her.Alright, I guess by alright, see ya off.You go but I can't be them
Elon Musk drew a cartoon of this phenomenon. He was left of centre. The left moved to far left (censorship, no support of free speech) and the centre line moved to his left, leaving him on the right though his views were unchanged. Many of us feel that way.
Climate change . . . Do you mean that lil ole me can effect the survival of planet earth? A planet that has existed for millions of years despite earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, and other calamitous events? All of those plastic bags that us humans don’t recycle are going to disrupt Mother Earth? Dear old Mother can shake us off like dead skin cells any time that she so chooses. 😂
Old school liberal meant: 1) anti- monopolies 2) UNION protection 3) trade tariffs to protect USA wages and benefits from cheap imports due to cheap labor....i.e. Mexico, China, India ! 4) government regulations to protect from price gouging, monopolists, pollution 5) Political lobby controls on money and gratuities. Equal under the law...white, black, purple, fat, skinny....men / women !
Wrong. Those were always messages from the progressives. That's why it was called the progressive era. Progressiveism has been hijacked by liberal nonsense. Liberals ruined the Left, not the other way around.
Those on the right supported the King and his right to veto the national assembly, those on the left didn't and eventually revolted. The French Revolution did not happen in 1789, and that is when the sitting on the right or left to support or oppose the Kings right to veto happened in the National Assembly, it had nothing to do with free speech. I don't know what to think of Shellenburgers interview here, he does bring up some good points but he is woefully incorrect about a lot of historical things he brings up in this interview. Not only is he just completely wrong about how the right and left began in France, (that division lead to the revolution itself not some disagreement over free speech after the fact as he says). He also states that the FDR democrats supported minorities and equal rights, while ignoring the fact that a huge number of new deal democrats were also pro segregationist southern democrats, after that he says 80's and 90's democrats fought for free speech, well then explain political correctness that came into the lexicon in the early 70's, explain the attempted and partial censoring of the music industry in the 80's, and then the same thing against video games in the early 90's, these were all censorship and speech control movements by democrats. I say this as a liberal myself but the democrats have never really been liberal, they started as an anti federalist party, and morphed into very controlling progressives in the last 100 years.
I'm all for liberty and freedoms. Classicly American. I'm Voting RFK to bring back those freedoms I don't see either red or blue (left and right hand of the power and control party) actively working towards. Take our country back for real Liberty for the people.
Nonsense: the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have no substantive reference, and Zuby and Mike prove that in their own definitions of those slippery terms. Liberal and conservative describe an emotional state, a mood.
We're not in 18th Century Revolutionary France under a 3-estate model of absolute Monarchism, so "left" and "right" mean absolutely nothing. Authoritarian vs Libertarian is at least an axis measuring the scope of State power which is clearly definable. There are other such axes, so why not abandon "left & right"?
The only means liberalism have to maintain itself are reliant upon hypocrisy, but the liberal is an omnipresent existence of hypocrisies which is the only reason why liberalism lasts as long as it has. Take prisons as an example. What sort of logic is there within liberalism to support the existence of prisons? The strongest argument is that the criminal violates the "social contract." This in itself is hypocritical and nonsensical. What sort of "free" society is it where everyone is born obligate to some mystical contract that none of us had the will or ability to consent to? And if you go against this intangible document it gives the "free" people the means to violate your political equality and your human right to movement by throwing you in prison. And if you point this out the only response you get is to be threatened to be punished with ostracization and isolation. Its also funny as these are the people who that mankinds state-of-nature is to be a solitary animal roaming and freely engaging with other people. Yet that baseline existence is a threat and punishment enough to strongarm others into compliance with a conceptualized zeitgeist of the will of everyone called the "Social Contract." All-the-while these exact same individuals who demand tou ablute your individual choices to be compliant with the will of the group will turn around and straight-faced call themselves "individualist." The socialist, having a better understanding of liberal philosophy than the liberal, expects some rational consistency, they notice the same irrationality in the philosophy that posits itself as being rational, and actually believes in it. Liberalism is why the socialist will avowedly demand the abolishment of prisons. Because the Socialist actually understands and believes in Liberalism. The Conservative recognizes the history of humanity. The collectivist-individualist dichotomy is a farce. People are both. The criminals actions of vice, decadence and degeneracy assails both individuals and society as a whole. Therefore you are not free to commit vice. Virtues uplift not just yourself but others around you. Therefore you have limitless freedoms to pursue virtues. Most of the modern debate are socialists expecting liberalism to actually be liberals and conservatives trying to point out liberalism isnt a great value on its own.
“Free speech was not just liberal it was radical” This dude is wild. It’s like listening to a cult member who’s de programming trying to justify how the cult started off good, lol. It was always about control of speech. Abby Hoffman said “ don’t trust anyone over 40” Abby Hoffman was well over 40 when he said this.
"You're a far right extremist nazi if you believe in free speech and free markets." I wonder if most leftists know how much they actually have in common with nazis compared to the people they're accusing of being far right.
classical liberalism refers to 19th century term "liberal". The term is highjacked by marxists. The libertarians now are 19th century "classical liberals" from back then. Don't get it twisted.
It appears to be Michael Savage's shtik to say that liberalism is a mental disorder. I would disagree with him and say it is _leftism_ that is a mental disorder, and that classical liberalism is respectable and respectful of other people's views.
What you guys are discussing, is mostly an american phenomenon, basically because you've grown accustomed to only having 2 parties to choose between in your parliamentary system and elections. In most european countries, there is much higher number of political parties to choose from, so we don't tend to conflate "liberal" with "the left". You really ought to have more choice on the political spectrum, dear americans, maybe you wouldn't get so confused about the political terminologies and what they actually mean. I mean ... "red or blue, where to put the mark?" ... that's clearly a gross over-simplification of the political ideologies and choices there really is to consider.
lol I’m not going to be lectured by the continent that wiped 100s of millions of people off the planet last century. Save your superiority for someone else.
Hierarchies and liberalism. Humans form all sorts of hierarchies. Athletics is one. Why are there so many great American black basketball players? I mean black Americans are only 12% of the population, but have been over 80% of all the great players. Why? It's curious because most black people are not great athletes, just ordinary like anyone else of all races. The reason is there are slight variations in human populations. Most black people are athletically normal, but within the black population you get a bit higher ratio of extremely talented athletes. Same thing is true with science, chess and math. Some populations do better on average. American Jews are 1% of the population but are 30% of Harvard students, are 50% of world chess champions and are about 30% of graduates of "The World's Hardest Math Class" at Harvard. Why is that? Most Jewish people are just normal average people, but within the Jewish population you get a bit higher ration of extremely talented people in math and chess and science. Liberals say treat everyone as an individual. I agree. What do you do if you are a black man who is a genius at math or science? Progressives would say we must even out all differences between groups, so we have quotas on how many geniuses allowed from each group? Makes no sense. That's like saying most Americans are white and half the population is female. So the NBA should have a lot of women in it. But that's dumb to implement equality because women don't play basketball at the same level as men. Elon Musk tweeted Mark Cuban about this, Mark is Woke, thinks all groups need equality of outcome, but Mark won't hire short Asian women for his Mavericks basketball team. Why not? Mark is not stupid, they don't have the talent. Plus Mark is lying. So given that all groups display variations how do we maintain peace in a multi-racial society? Do we pretend all people are equal? Can that progressive lie exist in the real world, run a society? I doubt it. We should give everyone equal opportunity, but stop expecting equal outcomes. People succeed or don't succeed for all kinds of reason. The liberal answer is, judge everyone as an individual, as Martin Luther King said. I agree. The progressive answer is to lie, tell everyone that everyone is equal, but all white men are bad, so we have to just discriminate against white men. So basically progressives are self hating white racists, who don't like white people, resent their success. Progressives just lie, tell everyone that everyone is equal, all groups should compete based on group identity. No thanks. That just encourages racism and violence in the long run. If progressives want to keep pushing the narrative all whites are evil especially men, then eventually white men will take that seriously and join the competition to just benefit white men, over women and minorities. I dread the day white men decide fuck it, we'll compete against you as a group. What a horror show that will be.
@@bassandtrebleclef Libertarians acknowledge that Freedom House says there are only 31 free nations of the world's 195 countries. The West make up most of that 31, from Norway to the US, from UK to Australia. Therefore, freedom is rare and needs protecting. Therefore, deterrent defence, structured immigration and, by definition, borders.
I’ve read a few books on FDR, my favorite historical figure. FDR was smart enough to realize after 1920’s/ 1929 Crash: Wall Street, you fucked up. Time to pay 90% and get shit rolling again… THEN!!! When war broke out, FDR deregulated ALL KINDS OF INDUSTRY/ SUBSIDIZED THEM (predominantly the auto industry) to build hundreds of thousands of Planes, tanks, ships, guns, ammo… To send the Nazis back to Valhalla. In the span of a SINGLE DECADE 1/2, FDR was a: Raging Liberal AND… A staunch Conservative/ Pro-Wall Street. Legend.
I still like classical Liberalism as an idea but there's a lot of errors and false premises that undermine its foundations. Until you address these issues liberalism is doomed to be twisted or cast aside.
Sorry dude but thr Roosevelt admin was the most racist, anti-Semitic and tyrannical as any admin! It also caused the depression to last an extra decade!
Here's my biggest issue with what I see from the Left. The Left says to the Non Left, "When you have power over me, I ask you for mercy. And, since mercy is in your nature you grant it to me. When I have power over you, you ask me for mercy. But, mercy is not in my nature and I do not grant it to you."
Ah, a fellow Frank Herbert fan.
Is this really a stance of the left?.. would these words come from someone on the left?
Actions speak louder than words.
@@jzajzz Have you missed the actions of almost damn near every left wing government ever in existence?
I have lots of problems with the left but that characterization is totally false. The right has just as many rigid and unreasonable people who are tribal and extreme.
Language matters. And groups have been hijacking words at an astonishing rate over the past 50 years, The 'classical liberal' has way more in common with today's American conservative than they have with today's American liberal / left.
the word liberal now means progressive which is unfortunate because they are different things.
@@FazeParticles I was going to bring that up. The Progressives intentionally rebranded themselves as Liberals post-WWII, hijacking a term that meant something totally different from what they stand for.
"Classical Liberals" are and always been Conservatives. Liberty is paramount in all decisions. For example, does this proposed law increase or decrease an individual's liberty. Individuals are more important than the collective. Also, classical liberals have always been wary of giving government control of pretty much anything. Because some modern day Liberals are finding themselves removed from their collective, they say "oh the Liberal movement today is not what I signed up for." Yes, yes, it is. They held that the government is the only thing that can "fix" social problems. They held that the collective is more important than the individual. They held that safety was more important than liberty.
@@FazeParticles And yet, progressive proves to be about anything but going forward in any way shape or form.
@@illbeyourmonster5752 progressive just means progress towards a feminist-communist utopia or as close as possible.
calling fdr and chomskey classical liberals would have john locke rising from the dead just to have a second heart attack
True, but where in this video did anyone say that?
@@kenelmtonkin1 when asked "what is liberalism" he brought up his fdr loving mother and his talks about chomsky with his father. then he immediately said, "there was liberal and left overlap." he even included che guevara in this group. tbh i find todays victimhood culture waaaaaaay less objectionable than traditional democrats who are sympathetic to murderous marxists
@@kenelmtonkin1 I think he's referring to the thumbnail.
@@matthewrawlings1284 Ah, yes. Thank you
He certainly said that in reference to FDR.
The confusion around the terms “liberal” and “left” in America comes from the old centrist paradigm of center left (liberals) and center right (conservatives). But those two groups of people were both centrists. In today’s America, that old paradigm is meaningless. Because “left” today means actual leftist. As in some form of Marxist (Communist, Socialist, Maoist, Neo-Marxist). There is nothing liberal about a Marxist. A liberal is an individualist. Whether Classical Liberal or Social Liberal, still an individualist. A Marxist is a collectivist. All American liberals would be labelled “Rightists” and then sent to the reeducation work camp in Maoist China. Because everyone not far left is a rightist. Period. A liberal is not a leftist. A liberal is a centrist in terms of world government and economic politics on the horseshoe chart. Liberals believe in liberty. Leftists believe in authority. Which is just another” word for tyranny.
Well-said!
I think one problem is we still try to put all positions on a straight line from extreme left to extreme right. I think the model needs updating. Maybe a circle, or a tree, or a bubble diagram would be a better illustration of real life positions.
Very well stated. People don’t understand that conservatives in America are actually extremely liberal by global standards. Conservatives in America are actually liberals. Classical liberals. Libertarians. The Democratic Party and their platform today is more to the left than some of the most radical political parties in Europe. Have always been rather central. The New York Times even that story about this 10 years ago they show that Republicans have never as a party platform steered very far from the middle and that they are closer to the middle today than ever and this was 10 years ago is even more moderate today than back then. In fact, take away all the bullshit from the media and listen to what Marjorie Taylor Greene actually thinks and believes and she sounds exactly like Donald Trump and Donald Trump sounds exactly like Bill Clinton back in 1992 and similar to Barack Obama in 2008.
The left, the progressives, have been playing the slow game since the late 1800s, but they started moving more to the left especially the media and the culture under Bill Clinton, which was really Hillary Clinton pushing that and then completely sold out under Barack Obama. These people are in fact, socialist and fascists, which is left with audiology despite what people are taught , because they are absolutely authoritarians as stated. FDR was a socialist and very, very much a collectivist and sympathetic to the Soviet union and Joseph Stalin. Winston Churchill could not get FDR to see how corrupt and evil communism and Joseph Stalin were.
The goal of the left is like he stated, fascism, communism, collectivist authoritarianism, and the roadmap is Saul’s Alinsky , rules radicals.
Going to put this on Twitter. I’ll give you credit of course. 👍🏻
Because in America we use the terms liberal and conservative different than the rest of the Western world. The most conservative person in America is still a classical liberal by global standards. That’s why conservatives and libertarians are called classical liberals. Liberalism in the western sense is about the individual not collectivism.
And of course the water gets ever muddier when people start distinguishing cultural vs. political left & right. But Andrew Breibart was correct was correct when he said politics is downstream of culture. This is why the right has been losing for decades. Because most people are more socially liberal, but culturally economically politically conservative, but that’s impossible to be these days now that the test taken control of our schools now if you’re socially liberal, you’re gonna be politically liberal because they make it About human rights, which is ridiculous. I was saying back in the 80s that people on the right needed to start fighting but everyone thought it was crazy. When political correctness started in the 1990s, some of us knew exactly where this was going and tried to warn people, but no one wanted to listen.
I’ve been saying for years, I’m a limited government liberal and I’m proud of that. It’s what our constitution intended.
If that's what you believe then you are a conservative. Just own it.
This makes you a classical liberal
There's no such thing as a limited government liberal. Liberals have done nothing but increase the size of government.
I love Michael Shellenberger's work. But, hang on: How is FDR a classical liberal? FDR was a semi-fascist. Classical liberalism was a a 19th century thing. It's Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. FDR was a progressive. Progressivism derived from German conservative statism.
FDR - WORST President for Civil Liberties of any Prez!
There was nothing "semi" about FDR's fascism. He was a full-out fascist socialist. Instead of laying the blame of the Great Depression at the feet of the Federal Reserve where it belonged, he blamed businesses and market instability. To counter this false accusation, FDR instituted numerous State agencies to control business and the People. He even criticized SCOTUS for not "going along" with his fascistic policies (the 3-horse analogy). He wasn't as bad as Mussolini or Hitler; however, he did begin this monstrous federal government we have today: the antithesis of conservativism.
Well I am not that familiar with him or his work but he seriously needs a history lesson, he is just blatantly wrong about what right and left meant in France, it was about the Kings right to veto not free speech and it happened before the revolution not after. He then says FDR democrats were pro rights of minorities, ignoring the fact that a whole lot of southern democrats who supported segregation were also new deal democrats and helped him stay in office. He then says the left defended free speech in the 80's and 90's when in fact the lefts morale brigade against offensive language began in the 1970's and that they try pushing this controlled language on us once every decade or so each time getting more and more abrasive and demanding in their appeals. He makes some good points, but in my opinion it seems he wants to look at US liberalism and the democratic party of the previous 100 years with rose colored glasses, as if things have just gotten rotten recently, no they have been rotten for a long time and its not just the democrats to blame, they are half to blame for it, you have to look over to the other side to find the other responsible party.
@@crconway7926 Fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
@bartoszlubczonok2941. Very astute observation there, my friend.
In fact, there are surviving letters where FDR professes his respect an admiration for Adolf Hitler.
Many leading progressives in the US and Britain thought Hitler was the cat’s meow.
In spite of the absurdities of the Left’s rewritten histories, the Fascists are not on the American political Right.
The fascists are, and always have been, the Right hand of Leftism.
I've got to agree with most of the comments here. FDR was not a Classical Liberal. Classical liberals today would be more like the libertarians.
Correct. Libertarian, not conservative. But where did anyone say FDR was a classical liberal?
@@kenelmtonkin1 I don't remember. The thumbnail maybe? Other comments?
There’s confusion in terminology. It might be better to refer to classic liberal, to refer to e.g., RFK Jr or JFK.
As you say, classical liberalism is really libertarianism. Or more precisely there was classical liberalism - Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, people like that - and derivatives would be libertarianism on the one hand and Ayn Rand's Objectivism on the other.
It gets old listening to these converts from the Left talk about how the Left used to be about free speech. That's never been true.
The Left, even the American Left, has always been about imposing policy and oppressing dissent. FDR was the closest we've had to dictator.
After the crisis years of the Depression and the war, the country turned against the obvious authoritarianism of international communism in the 50's. The communist professors and students of the 60's used calls of free speech as a tactic. They wanted to crack the defenses against their brand of tyranny by making themselves into victims of repression.
They never believed in it as a principle. That's the point of Repressive Tolerance.
The Left is collectivist, and it's impossible to create collective action when people are pulling in different directions. You've got to get everyone on the same page to get them moving the way you want, which means suppressing calls to do anything other than what the leaders of the collective decide is best.
Very well put.
Go back a few squares. Defending things like free speech was literally what created the left.
A massive part of the problem is that most people don't even understand what Liberalism is or where it came from. I mean, I almost never hear anyone bring up and note the distinction between English Liberalism and continental (French) Liberalism - cause that's what's really at the heart of the matter. They are absolutely not the same thing and yet people treat them interchangeable.
The French revolution and it's ideas were some of the worst things to happen to Europe, and the world by extension.
Agreed entirely…..the left isn’t about freedom… scratch the surface and you immediately uncover authoritarianism.
A certain part of the left has been pro-free speech at least ex ante their being in power. Once in power the nature of collectivism will force even previously pro-speech leftists to be anti-free speech.
The division between left and right is wrong. The "cut" is more clearly made between those who value truth vs those who value power.
Look at the results and not how it is presented.
For instance, the rabid anti gaming moms and action groups craving censorship (right) or the reverence of Che (left), who enjoyed unsubscribing people are both examples of people who worshiped power over others and see truth as an occasionally useful tool.
There's quite a difference between identifying dangers to children and suppressing the civil liberties of adults, which do not include reducing other adults to breeders with no authority over their own offspring.
I would classify this as objectivists vs. subjectivists. There is a natural order and natural law, and those who would deny these.
Those anti gaming moms were leftist activists too. Conservative Mom’s would just confiscate the games or just not buy them.
If you value truth, you should value the power to uphold the truth.
@@annatardlordofderps9181 Yes, but there is a difference between "valuing the power to uphold the truth" because you fundamentally value the truth by itself, and valuing truth only as a useful instrument for the purpose of wielding power. Not embracing power as the ultimate goal doesn't equate to relinquishing all opportunities to exert power. The issue is to exert power responsibly at the service of a higher value. There is room for being authoritative without being authoritarian.
I grew up antiwar, pro-human rights, pro-free speech, peace pot and microdot....now im maga by default and the only change is the greying of my beard
Just keep an eye out for many maga people being anti-free trade. Lots of people are now blaming free exchange for economic problems, instead of government regulations. Look up the Smoot-Hawley tariff and how it caused the great depression.
Thank the Earth as a fellow Gen X I had kids in my 40’s instead of my 20’s/ 30’s because I “MISSED” that whole:
“Everyone gets a trophy”
BULLSH!T…
That man put Nelson Mandela and CHE GUEVARA in the same sentence as HEROS?!😂😂😂😂
Neither of them were heroes.
They both murdered people
@@Bailiol He actually was very violent before his prison sentence (and maybe during). The ANC had a militant terrorist arm that did some horrific things, and Mandela's implicated in a lot of it.
@@Bailiol Tell that to the random civilians and trains stations he bombed.
Nelson Mandela may be the most thorough white-washing of a persons history, ever.
@@Bailiollol you’re too far gone
I'm a Liberal, but by today's standards I'm 'Right Wing' ... So be it.
I've been a liberal all my life. My friends call me an, "ultra conservative," because I believe in free trade and free markets.
historically if we use the founding fathers' standards you're all gay liberals even me and that's a bloody shame. if we can even get back to JFK style liberalism i think society would be healthy.
I'm in the same boat.
Wow, this is me. These people are talking about me! I thought I was a liberal until about 3-4 years ago. I'm definitely not right wing, my wife is an immigrant!
Is your wife a naturalized citizen? Does she speak fluent English? If the answer is yes, then no one is complaining.
@@RextheRebel but what happened to immigrants being the cause of all the country's problems!?
@@ratttttyyy immigrants are a cause of many problems due to their sheer numbers, as well as most refusing to learn or speak English. They drive down wages and drive up housing costs.
But this at the end of the day is really at the fault of government and their lobbyists advocating for endless streams of cheap labor.
FDR pushed for the largest expansion of the federal government since the Civil War, undermined or directly violated the Bill of Rights multiple times, threatened to pack the SCOTUS with his cronies if they called any of his unconstitutional programs what they were, and bought repeated reelection by creating social programs to make poor people dependant on the government... I think he confused "liberal" with "socialist".
That said, I despised labeling large groups "leftist" or "rightist", since those are story ambiguous and shift definitions often.
And won an unambiguously good war, thereby giving the US a level of power that would put Rome in awe.
@@missano3856 You mean the war that was easily avoidable by not collectively punishing all of Germany into the ground, giving rise to the Nazis? The war that the FDR took the most credit for while the USSR put in the most work? Yeah, sure thing, boss.
There's no such thing as an "unambiguously good war", except when reading propaganda.
@@missano3856There's no such thing as a "good war". Fact is that the allied powers created the environment that brought Hitler into power and then after the war created the framework of the military industrial complex (by paying industrial companies to help rebuild the war devastated areas).
So, no, not everything is so cut and dry.
Do not confuse Leftists, Modern Liberals, and Classical Liberals.
Good conversation.
Yep ...i really sat up when Michael said "they considered" themselves ( speaking of his parents ) ..middle class ...it has to do with different levels of poverty , which is a whole conversation thats not being had ..
For instance...we got by with not much , but our neighbours had less , WHO was poor?? ..we both were ...but at different levels ..
New Zealands left wing has gone crazy too.
In New Zealand, ACT are the classical liberals.
To me, conservatism means to be faithful to the original ideas brought forth by our founders, the very thing that made us great. A liberal wants to progress but often it’s not in tune with the original ideals so why would we listen to them when we have the great thinkers who built our country?
Liberal or Conservative doesn't matter so much as the perception of authority.
We here at Berkeley . Says it all .
Left-right and liberal-conservative are two different political spectra that don't coincide 100% all the time.
Is this channel baiting with the thumbnail implying FDR was a classical liberal, which is absurd?
Oh, the thumbnail. The video itself said no such thing. The thumbnail did. I see
“Free speech movement of the 80s/90s was coded left?”
What? Might I remind you, Mr. Shellenberger, of the PMRC? Founded by Tipper Gore? Mrs. Al Gore?
'coded' doesn't always mean accurate, but that broader normie culture accepts it as such. I remember in the early 2000's H. Clinton rallying against violent video games in light of some shootings, and my Californian co-workers couldn't (or refused) to see the dissonance between that stance and free speech.
In your categorization of “broader normie culture,” I really don’t think there’s a distinction between right and left, do you?
I mean, law/order types screaming about NWA and Bodycount, and the lefties screaming about misogynistic lyrics, (and the video games you mentioned..) with the more Libertarian amongst us left scratching their heads in bemusement….
Or was that confusion?
Either way, not particularly thrilled with either rationale..
the 80's and earlier was gay as well. scantily clad muscly men is gay. people are so full of shid pretending like we haven't been a progressive cesspool of a nation for 3 generations now is plain BS. of course we have.
@@dachief6470Both are pro government. They just want theirs.
Not to mention how he brings up FDR democrats and how they believed in helping the little guy and minorities, sure some did but many of the segregationist democrats of the south were also new deal democrats and that helping the little guy came with a big race requirement.
The government has no business getting involved in charity. They can only take your money (by force or the threat of force) to give it to others. Why would we think they would be good at helping others in this way, even if we were stupid enough to assume their benevolence ?
FDR ---- a liberal?
Right? FDR was a progressive. Very anti liberal actually. Both Roosevelts did much to end the liberal epoch of American society.
Born and raised in Massachusetts. Ive always been liberal but the shift happened during covid and continues. Have I changed or has the left changed? Ive held the same beliefs throughout but now Im right wing? lol Interesting times.
What a shithole. Literally every law and policy now comes directly from the WEF, no one on Beacon Hill cares about what regular people need or think. Oh look, another way for Karens to control your personal life like you live in a communist countr, while moral grandstanding about everything.
Same same same like holy s***I stayed on the same line and these people have gone completely.Like off to the they did us hard left turn and wearing all just like her.Alright, I guess by alright, see ya off.You go but I can't be them
Elon Musk drew a cartoon of this phenomenon. He was left of centre. The left moved to far left (censorship, no support of free speech) and the centre line moved to his left, leaving him on the right though his views were unchanged. Many of us feel that way.
Covid showed me that people I thought were friends of liberty think that the words "individual freedom" are obscene.
Climate change . . . Do you mean that lil ole me can effect the survival of planet earth? A planet that has existed for millions of years despite earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, and other calamitous events? All of those plastic bags that us humans don’t recycle are going to disrupt Mother Earth? Dear old Mother can shake us off like dead skin cells any time that she so chooses. 😂
Old school liberal meant:
1) anti- monopolies
2) UNION protection
3) trade tariffs to protect USA wages and benefits from cheap imports due to cheap labor....i.e. Mexico, China, India !
4) government regulations to protect from price gouging, monopolists, pollution
5) Political lobby controls on money and gratuities.
Equal under the law...white, black, purple, fat, skinny....men / women !
Wrong. Those were always messages from the progressives. That's why it was called the progressive era. Progressiveism has been hijacked by liberal nonsense. Liberals ruined the Left, not the other way around.
Those on the right supported the King and his right to veto the national assembly, those on the left didn't and eventually revolted. The French Revolution did not happen in 1789, and that is when the sitting on the right or left to support or oppose the Kings right to veto happened in the National Assembly, it had nothing to do with free speech. I don't know what to think of Shellenburgers interview here, he does bring up some good points but he is woefully incorrect about a lot of historical things he brings up in this interview. Not only is he just completely wrong about how the right and left began in France, (that division lead to the revolution itself not some disagreement over free speech after the fact as he says). He also states that the FDR democrats supported minorities and equal rights, while ignoring the fact that a huge number of new deal democrats were also pro segregationist southern democrats, after that he says 80's and 90's democrats fought for free speech, well then explain political correctness that came into the lexicon in the early 70's, explain the attempted and partial censoring of the music industry in the 80's, and then the same thing against video games in the early 90's, these were all censorship and speech control movements by democrats. I say this as a liberal myself but the democrats have never really been liberal, they started as an anti federalist party, and morphed into very controlling progressives in the last 100 years.
It all comes back to the eternal Oppressor / Oppressed mind - set.
FDR was more of a not see than not. Yikes.... you reveal yourself.
I'm all for liberty and freedoms. Classicly American. I'm Voting RFK to bring back those freedoms I don't see either red or blue (left and right hand of the power and control party) actively working towards.
Take our country back for real Liberty for the people.
What is his stance on the 2nd? Still ready to abolish it?
Nonsense: the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have no substantive reference, and Zuby and Mike prove that in their own definitions of those slippery terms. Liberal and conservative describe an emotional state, a mood.
wtf. did this guy just mention Che Guevara as someone to celebrate!? omfg.
You've got it backwards man. Leftism didn't ruin Liberalism. Liberalism ruined the Left.
the failure of classical left like FDR was ignoring race and race relationships, and that created the gap between the establishment and the radicals.
We're not in 18th Century Revolutionary France under a 3-estate model of absolute Monarchism, so "left" and "right" mean absolutely nothing. Authoritarian vs Libertarian is at least an axis measuring the scope of State power which is clearly definable. There are other such axes, so why not abandon "left & right"?
American use of the word Liberal stems from a time when the right was far less ‘liberal’
Zuby is he strongest most powerful woman I know! Hes awesome!
The only means liberalism have to maintain itself are reliant upon hypocrisy, but the liberal is an omnipresent existence of hypocrisies which is the only reason why liberalism lasts as long as it has.
Take prisons as an example. What sort of logic is there within liberalism to support the existence of prisons? The strongest argument is that the criminal violates the "social contract."
This in itself is hypocritical and nonsensical. What sort of "free" society is it where everyone is born obligate to some mystical contract that none of us had the will or ability to consent to? And if you go against this intangible document it gives the "free" people the means to violate your political equality and your human right to movement by throwing you in prison.
And if you point this out the only response you get is to be threatened to be punished with ostracization and isolation.
Its also funny as these are the people who that mankinds state-of-nature is to be a solitary animal roaming and freely engaging with other people. Yet that baseline existence is a threat and punishment enough to strongarm others into compliance with a conceptualized zeitgeist of the will of everyone called the "Social Contract."
All-the-while these exact same individuals who demand tou ablute your individual choices to be compliant with the will of the group will turn around and straight-faced call themselves "individualist."
The socialist, having a better understanding of liberal philosophy than the liberal, expects some rational consistency, they notice the same irrationality in the philosophy that posits itself as being rational, and actually believes in it. Liberalism is why the socialist will avowedly demand the abolishment of prisons. Because the Socialist actually understands and believes in Liberalism.
The Conservative recognizes the history of humanity. The collectivist-individualist dichotomy is a farce. People are both. The criminals actions of vice, decadence and degeneracy assails both individuals and society as a whole. Therefore you are not free to commit vice. Virtues uplift not just yourself but others around you. Therefore you have limitless freedoms to pursue virtues.
Most of the modern debate are socialists expecting liberalism to actually be liberals and conservatives trying to point out liberalism isnt a great value on its own.
Che Guerva a hero.... WTF lol is this a late April Fools joke
Millions of people view Che as a hero , especially in South America. You see people in Che tshirts all day .
@@Papawcanner and I wonder if 'those' people realize his true beliefs and not the legend
The fact he sees living on a family farm poverty tells me all I need to know about this dyed in the wool democrat.... or Communist
FDR was not a classical liberal. No way.
Human potential doesn't need to be affirmed. Human potential is left to the individual.
“Free speech was not just liberal it was radical” This dude is wild. It’s like listening to a cult member who’s de programming trying to justify how the cult started off good, lol. It was always about control of speech.
Abby Hoffman said “ don’t trust anyone over 40” Abby Hoffman was well over 40 when he said this.
The right is also destroyed.
Question. What is the limiting principle that liberals have that conservatives don't?
I have been an OG Liberal for 48yrs. In 2024, that makes me far right.
"You're a far right extremist nazi if you believe in free speech and free markets." I wonder if most leftists know how much they actually have in common with nazis compared to the people they're accusing of being far right.
classical liberalism refers to 19th century term "liberal". The term is highjacked by marxists. The libertarians now are 19th century "classical liberals" from back then. Don't get it twisted.
So the left/right dichotomy comes from the French tradition no wonder it is heavily flawed.
It appears to be Michael Savage's shtik to say that liberalism is a mental disorder. I would disagree with him and say it is _leftism_ that is a mental disorder, and that classical liberalism is respectable and respectful of other people's views.
What you guys are discussing, is mostly an american phenomenon, basically because you've grown accustomed to only having 2 parties to choose between in your parliamentary system and elections.
In most european countries, there is much higher number of political parties to choose from, so we don't tend to conflate "liberal" with "the left".
You really ought to have more choice on the political spectrum, dear americans, maybe you wouldn't get so confused about the political terminologies and what they actually mean.
I mean ... "red or blue, where to put the mark?" ... that's clearly a gross over-simplification of the political ideologies and choices there really is to consider.
lol I’m not going to be lectured by the continent that wiped 100s of millions of people off the planet last century.
Save your superiority for someone else.
Hierarchies and liberalism. Humans form all sorts of hierarchies. Athletics is one. Why are there so many great American black basketball players? I mean black Americans are only 12% of the population, but have been over 80% of all the great players. Why? It's curious because most black people are not great athletes, just ordinary like anyone else of all races. The reason is there are slight variations in human populations. Most black people are athletically normal, but within the black population you get a bit higher ratio of extremely talented athletes.
Same thing is true with science, chess and math. Some populations do better on average. American Jews are 1% of the population but are 30% of Harvard students, are 50% of world chess champions and are about 30% of graduates of "The World's Hardest Math Class" at Harvard.
Why is that? Most Jewish people are just normal average people, but within the Jewish population you get a bit higher ration of extremely talented people in math and chess and science.
Liberals say treat everyone as an individual. I agree. What do you do if you are a black man who is a genius at math or science? Progressives would say we must even out all differences between groups, so we have quotas on how many geniuses allowed from each group? Makes no sense. That's like saying most Americans are white and half the population is female. So the NBA should have a lot of women in it. But that's dumb to implement equality because women don't play basketball at the same level as men. Elon Musk tweeted Mark Cuban about this, Mark is Woke, thinks all groups need equality of outcome, but Mark won't hire short Asian women for his Mavericks basketball team. Why not? Mark is not stupid, they don't have the talent. Plus Mark is lying.
So given that all groups display variations how do we maintain peace in a multi-racial society? Do we pretend all people are equal? Can that progressive lie exist in the real world, run a society? I doubt it. We should give everyone equal opportunity, but stop expecting equal outcomes. People succeed or don't succeed for all kinds of reason. The liberal answer is, judge everyone as an individual, as Martin Luther King said. I agree. The progressive answer is to lie, tell everyone that everyone is equal, but all white men are bad, so we have to just discriminate against white men. So basically progressives are self hating white racists, who don't like white people, resent their success. Progressives just lie, tell everyone that everyone is equal, all groups should compete based on group identity. No thanks. That just encourages racism and violence in the long run. If progressives want to keep pushing the narrative all whites are evil especially men, then eventually white men will take that seriously and join the competition to just benefit white men, over women and minorities. I dread the day white men decide fuck it, we'll compete against you as a group. What a horror show that will be.
Libertarians got it right
Except for the border.
@@bassandtrebleclef Libertarians acknowledge that Freedom House says there are only 31 free nations of the world's 195 countries. The West make up most of that 31, from Norway to the US, from UK to Australia. Therefore, freedom is rare and needs protecting. Therefore, deterrent defence, structured immigration and, by definition, borders.
Sorry that’s just absurdly wrong. You were on the same train you just wanted to get off at your stop not keep going off the cliff.
I’ve read a few books on FDR, my favorite historical figure.
FDR was smart enough to realize after 1920’s/ 1929 Crash:
Wall Street, you fucked up. Time to pay 90% and get shit rolling again…
THEN!!!
When war broke out, FDR deregulated ALL KINDS OF INDUSTRY/ SUBSIDIZED THEM (predominantly the auto industry) to build hundreds of thousands of
Planes, tanks, ships, guns, ammo…
To send the Nazis back to Valhalla.
In the span of a SINGLE DECADE 1/2, FDR was a:
Raging Liberal
AND…
A staunch Conservative/ Pro-Wall Street.
Legend.
Lol if you're a Liberal it means you're a Right winger by definition. What planet are you people on?
Bro said liberal like fdr and che, lmao wat
I’m not so sure why the words matter all so much altogether. Why are we trying so hard to group people together?
Words matter when people try to paint FDR as a liberal. It’s simply not true.
@@Doggo-frencton I still don’t see how it matters. Who cares if he’s called liberal or not?
I still like classical Liberalism as an idea but there's a lot of errors and false premises that undermine its foundations. Until you address these issues liberalism is doomed to be twisted or cast aside.
What errors? (Classical liberal here)
No they didn't, they literally opened the doorway to all of this that we are seeing today ... They were the introduction drug, to all the hard stuff.
Sorry dude but thr Roosevelt admin was the most racist, anti-Semitic and tyrannical as any admin! It also caused the depression to last an extra decade!