Just Another Political Post.

[--Pete]

Hi,
Who the hell are you talking to? Or are you just farting in the wind? If you can't be bothered to actually hit the 'reply' button in the post you are replying to, at least quote enough of the post to give those of us not blessed with ESP a clue.

All of the founding fathers of this country were "liberal."

Bull. John Hancock was a merchant and a smuggler who felt that he could do better business under an American government that need his services than under a British government that prohibited his enterprises. Alexander Hamilton felt that the common people were totally unfit to rule themselves and proposed a constitution that was much more 'aristocratic' than the one that was ultimately compromised upon (and which only gave people a direct vote for their Representatives, the weaker of the two houses of Congress). George Washington was mostly neutral in outlook. On the few occasions (e.g., The Whiskey Rebellion) when he actively took a part, his part was inconclusive, both enforcing the law to the limit, and then pardoning the lawbreakers after they were found guilty of treason.

Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence from the Southern states were persuaded to join the revolution because of the British anti-slavery attitude (England declared slavery illegal sometime before 1820 and stopped and seized on the high seas any ship carrying slaves). Assured that the new United States would permit them to keep their chattel indefinitely, they reluctantly (England could supply goods that they needed and that the North could not yet produce), joined the revolutionary cause. Hardly 'liberal' as I understand it, even in the culture of the day.

Why is that such a bad word?
[right][snapback]89747[/snapback][/right]

Because in the post WW II era, many stupid things were done under the banner of 'liberal'. Many policies (including school policies), many programs, were instituted by people who had the same attitude toward, and no better understanding of, the bulk of the population than had their 'patron saint', Thomas ("I never get my hands dirty") Jefferson. And the reason that those policies and programs were so attractive to that population that were adults after WW II was tha tthey had been greatly exposed to Jeffersonian ideals by FDR. However, FDR was smart enough to know, unlike Jefferson himself and unlike the idealists post WW II, that in applying ideals, a healthy dose of reality must be mixed in.

Don't worry, the antics of the Republicans since Bush the First will make 'conservative' a term of opprobrium soon enough. In some circles it already is.

--Pete