Forum Post: Words of encouragement for the Occupy movement
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 2, 2012, 10:16 p.m. EST by Underdog
(2971)
from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Ostensibly speaking, the Occupy movement is leaderless. Nevertheless, all people need encouragement from time to time, and this is something traditionally provided by leadership. I will not set myself up as a self-appointed leader within the movement, but I will offer the below words of encouragement. This is particularly important as there have been increasing voices prophesying doom regarding Occupy -- and that would be a real shame if that happened.
When one reviews the rise of Conservatism in this country, it becomes obvious that the rise occurred during the "go, go" 1980s. Disciples of Conservatism followed their Lord and Savior Ronald Reagan to previously unheard-of levels of successful propaganda deriding Liberalism as somehow not only un-American, but downright dangerous to the economic prosperity of the nation. With their mantra of tax cuts and laissez-faire capitalism, they successfully captured the hearts and minds of a large segment of the population. Liberals went into hiding. If they ever raised their voices, they were careful not to do so by uttering the "L" word. Liberalism was literally viewed as a dirty word, thanks to successful Conservative propaganda.
I want every American, Conservative or Liberal, to understand clearly and precisely exactly what Liberalism stands for. It is for social progress. It is for the betterment of society for ALL. It holds to ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence -- that ALL men are created equal and that they have the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It stands in direct opposition to Conservative principles of maintaining the status quo.
Let us look briefly at what actions have transpired in our nation's history, all of which being Liberal in nature:
The American Revolution was a LIBERAL action! Freeing the slaves was a LIBERAL action! The Women's Suffrage movement was a LIBERAL action! The creation of labor unions was a LIBERAL action! Creating Child-Labor laws was a LIBERAL action! Passing Social Security and Medicare legislation was a LIBERAL action! Passing Civil Rights Legislation was a LIBERAL action!
And yes, Occupy is a LIBERAL action! I challenge Conservatives to provide a list of Conservative actions that comes anywhere close to what Liberals have accomplished in our history. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, was the Interstate Highway Act that occurred during Eisenhower.
You are part of a proud tradition of social progress, determinedly fought for, that has a rich history in this country. The next time a Conservative wishes to deride your views or asks why you support the Liberal agenda, just remind him or her of what Liberalism really stands for and what it has accomplished.
But do this gently. Conservatives really can't help themselves. Recent scientific research indicates that Conservatives likely hold to their beliefs for biological reasons as per this link:
http://www.salon.com/2010/12/29/conservative_brains/
This indicates that the primitive Fight or Flight response in humans is grounded in biology, not psychology. Liberals are inclined to Fight for social progress and Conservatives are inclined to Flee from change due to fear imbedded in their brains. Do not berate them. Instead, pity them and do your best to lead them toward the light. They, like children, are possessed of many fears. It is up to us to help them as best we can to overcome their fear of the world and the inevitable change processes that occur within it.
The problem with this study is that they grouped people into one of two group either Liberal or Consertative when post people are neither purely liberal nor purely conservative. There are about 15 groups between Liberal and Conservative and most people fit into one of those 15 groups. Very few people are purely conservative or purely liberal and I will prove it to you right now. A pure liberal supports capitalism. Does that sound like you?
Here are the definitions of each and just a few of the 15 that fall in between:
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views.
Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.
Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement. The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. The events such as World War I occurring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances. As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.
Great post, Underdog. Two corrections: Eisenhower, at least by today's standards, could not be called a conservative. The interstate highway initiative would be considered communist by today's conservatives. And what, I wonder, would today's conservatives say about his warning against the military industrial complex?
Second correction is to Learnthis: Economic liberalism does not champion laissez faire markets. It champions a regulated market. What you are referring to is neo-liberalism.
At any rate, no variant of conservatism is about forward motion. By definition, is it about holding back. It's only positive purpose, politically, is to provide a check against profligacy, or of rushing headlong into a policy that may not yet be understood. But it has been liberalism alone that has moved the nation forward increasing the well being of the greatest number of its citizens.
Again, Underdog, thank you for your post. It is indeed heartening.
[Deleted]
I tried to find a history of my posts as well, and failed just as you did. I'm stumped.
I tried to do it with your username as well, and got a scant 5 results, only one that actually included a post of yours.
Thanks for your support.
Regarding the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System or the Interstate), a little-known fact in the mind of the public is that it's primary purpose for construction was as a national defense infrastructure system to more easily facilitate the movement of troops, equipment, and supplies around the country. It's benefit to the public as a means of civilian transport was considered secondary as per this quote off Wikipedia:
"Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[6] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion."
In light of the above, it is easy to see that at the height of the Cold War, when Soviet nuclear attack was preeminent in the minds of civilian and military leaders, it should come as no surprise that the Eisenhower initiative was proposed, enacted, funded, and constructed at a cost of $425 billion (in 2006 dollars), making it the largest public works project in history. If entire American cities were blown out of existence, the military needed a way to mobilize as efficiently and as rapidly as possible to deal with the mass confusion and civilian unrest (and likely uncivilized behavior) that would result from such a calamity. As a side note, most people don't know that the Internet, conceived and funded by DARPA, was also constructed with this same principle in mind. If Department of Defense computers, who were largely the only ones interconnected at that time, we're destroyed by nuclear attack, the design of TCP/IP would re-route data around destroyed hardware to keep the military computer system up and running as much as possible. Same concept with the Interstate.
So the Interstate system exists today due to "hawkish" conservatism and national defense concerns, although I am not critical of the spending of money on it as it quite obviously serves a great purpose for civilian transport. But it was never primarily conceived in a benign way as a benefit to American civilians. That was secondary.
I don't know that that many people are pure Liberals or pure Conservatives I think most people fall someplace in the middle. What do you think?
I think you're right insofar as people aren't one dimensional. However, both represent different directions, and the only direction that is forward is the liberal one. We all walk forwards and backwards, too, after all, and we'd be in real trouble if we confused which one was which.
I see many people who go neither forward nor backwards, they just shuffle from side to side.
What does that have to do with the OP? The post is not about personal psychology, but the forces and ideas that have moved civil society forward.
Let us know when you are ready to contribute to those ideas instead of impressing us with sophistry.
Everything has to do with everything else. The world is not limited to Occupy anything. Each little piece of the world is a part of another piece. The more pieces you understand the more you understand how the world works. I do not deal with absurd ideas like anyone should give me anything because that is what I think....I deal with the real world. Furthermore little brat the main post on this page deals with a flawed study that looks at the brains of liberals and conservatives. I pointed out that most people are not one or another and thus the stupid study the poster takes to heart and no believes solves the worlds problems is just that a flawed study with irrelevant conclusions. But no ya'll will hook your mindess claws into that post and study and believe that it explains why people are liberal or conservative like it was the lunch menu. Amen and good luck.
Did anyone but you "hook your claws" into that study? Was that really the thrust of the post? Or is the post about those of us who support OWS should have reason to be proud?
Your sense of smug superiority, indicated even by your command-as-handle, is not only offensive as hell, it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees.
I suspect you are simply another one of those Libertarian shills who come here for the express purpose of disruption. If my assumption is correct, it makes you little more than a troll.
Come out of the forest into the real world. Don't believe everything you are told. Read everything you can on things you are going to talk about. Think and analyze. THINK, THINK, THINK. Thinking is so important.
I don't believe everything I am told. I don't believe, for example, a syllable of your declarations of benign concern. And since it is you who have expressed nothing other than false assumptions about OWS, and have fallaciously and consistently drawn generalized conclusions from the particular, I suggest it is you who should be doing a lot more thinking.
"A pure liberal supports capitalism." ---- This is an incorrect assertion. Liberals support social progress for ALL citizens in a society. If capitalism is functioning well and benefiting all members of society, Liberals will support it. If it isn't functioning in the best interests of society, then they will reject it. That is why Occupy has arisen, as members of that group do not believe that capitalism as practiced in the US is functioning in the best interests of society. There are an abundance of statistics regarding wealth distribution in the US that would tend to back up those beliefs.
Regarding the study, which you spent the most time responding to, it was intended as support for recent scientific evidence that applies broadly across humanity. I certainly acknowledge that individuals within a group can vary widely in their political views, even having sharp disagreements within their own party. But when one zooms out to the macro-perspective (the forest instead of the trees), certain commonalities do emerge. That is how people can speak broadly and intelligently within the forensic arena without getting bogged down in a sea of confusion and distraction. If political discussions were required to engage in the depth of detail you have described, no intelligent conversations and consensus could be obtained.
Since science marches on, I try to keep an open mind and am willing to analyze any truly scientific counter-evidence you can provide. Until then, I'll remain cautiously aligned with the science provided until it can be refuted by hard evidence.
"They [the 1%], like children, are possessed of many fears. It is up to us to help them as best we can to overcome their fear of the world...".
Beautifully said. That's it. That's the crux of it. If we go in with that compassionate mindset we can't lose.