NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so there seems to be a person or two out there who feels that liberals only know how to criticize, and never actually accomplish anything.

I am looking for support.

Can anyone give me examples of liberals getting things done?

I will limit myself to one example to get things started. Nelson Mandela. Labeled a notorious terrorist by the United States, Mandela through great personal sacrifice brought democracy to South Africa over the protest of the United States.

Can anyone give me examples of liberals getting things done?

Define "liberal" first. The use of the word often is somewhat different in the US than it is in the rest of the world.

You so sure about that? You know that a lot of "progress" was accomplished by conservatives, like the early abolitionists who were those god damn dirty Jesus freaks and civil rights, a fucking bible-thumping Southern Baptist!

In response to a request for definition of Liberal:


Indeed. An excellent point.
Due to the fact that this thread is in response to another thread, I will use what I think was their intended definition, which does not agree with my own. For this thread Liberal, is seen by me to mean a person or group whose political alignment is even or to the left of the United States Democratic Party on a traditional left right political scale (which I realize is useless)

You so sure about that? You know that a lot of "progress" was accomplished by conservatives, like the early abolitionists who were those god damn dirty Jesus freaks and civil rights, a fucking bible-thumping Southern Baptist!

Just because someone is a "Jesus freak" does not make them a conservative. I would argue that preists seeking equality for a supressed population were some of the most important liberals in South America during the Reagan/Bush one years, R/B seemed to agree, terrorist groups they trained and equipped assasinated a great many.

edit

I think that this is a response to your comment, but upon second reading of your post, I am not as sure as I was to what you were trying to say.

You so sure about that? You know that a lot of "progress" was accomplished by conservatives, like the early abolitionists who were those god damn dirty Jesus freaks and civil rights, a fucking bible-thumping Southern Baptist!

Being religious doesn't make one conservative. Additionally both sides of the slavery debate used the bible to support their case, the conservatives wanted to keep things the same as they had always been and to 'protect states rights'.

For this thread Liberal, is seen by me to mean a person or group whose political alignment is even or to the left of the United States Democratic Party on a traditional left right political scale (which I realize is useless)

That describes the ruling parties of many countries in Europe - including the UK, France and Germany. Applying the scale to the Asian tigers is a little tougher.

That describes the ruling parties of many countries in Europe - including the UK, France and Germany. Applying the scale to the Asian tigers is a little tougher.

I agree again, this was one of my points in the earlier thread. By US political definition, Liberal encompasses just about every real democracy in the world, including our allies in the Iraq foolishness.

As for Asia, I understand, personally I do not know enough to laud or condemn much beyond that I would like to claim the dude with the Grocerys in Tinamin Square as a liberal, and say he was pretty damn cool, if slightly suicidal.

You so sure about that? You know that a lot of "progress" was accomplished by conservatives, like the early abolitionists who were those god damn dirty Jesus freaks and civil rights, a fucking bible-thumping Southern Baptist!
I could probably be called "a Jesus freak" but I'm quite left wing... I'm sure the abolitionist Christians you're talking about were like me too. It was the conservative Christians that wanted to keep slavery.

Just because someone is a "Jesus freak" does not make them a conservative. I would argue that preists seeking equality for a supressed population were some of the most important liberals in South America during the Reagan/Bush one years, R/B seemed to agree, terrorist groups they trained and equipped assasinated a great many.

True. Reagan was a really evil man, he probably didn't mind his goons hunting Christians, because they were Catholic.

To further complicate things, I have to ask: does someone count if they were 'liberal' by the standards of the era in which they lived, or would you consider a person who was called a conservative in their day, but fits the definition of 'liberal' used today?

and I realize that I never named a liberal who 'got things done'


Jesus.

you know, the long-haired pacifist who was tortured and killed by the government for treason?

Who denounced the established ruling class as hypocrites and taught that we should provide all we can for the poor?


that certainly sounds like a dirty hippy commie liberal to me.

and I realize that I never named a liberal who 'got things done'

Jesus.

you know, the long-haired pacifist who was tortured and killed by the government for treason?

Who denounced the established ruling class as hypocrites and taught that we should provide all we can for the poor?

that certainly sounds like a dirty hippy commie liberal to me.
True, but Jesus doesn't really conform to any ideological model we have. He transcends them all. You can also find quotes from Him that sound quite 'conservative'"

and I realize that I never named a liberal who 'got things done'

Jesus.

you know, the long-haired pacifist who was tortured and killed by the government for treason?

Pffft..Jesus wasn't a liberal...did he want to increase your taxes? Did he want Jews to rule? Did he want homosexuals to have unnatural privileges? Did he want men not to live by their own means (communism)?

You want liberals to start doing shit?

The liberal voice is already overwhelming represented in American society.

We have to fight to maintain our heritage. You are already winning.

Pffft..Jesus wasn't a liberal...did he want to increase your taxes? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Did he want Jews to rule? Did he want homosexuals to have unnatural privileges? No, but neither do liberals.

Did he want men not to live by their own means (communism)? He did encourage charity for the less fortunate, so...not necessarily.

The liberal voice is already overwhelming represented in American society. Not nearly enough so.

We have to fight to maintain our heritage. A non-liberal heritage isn't worth fighting for.

Can anyone give me examples of liberals getting things done?

American and French Revolutions.

A liberal who got something done?

Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

His biggest accomplishment? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amongst other things, including making homosexuality legal after it had been listed as a "mental disorder" for so long.

Well...I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" as such, but i'm sure there's plenty out there who would not make a distinction.

Anyway, I get shit done every day. I'm quite regular, thanks. :)

His biggest accomplishment? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, amongst other things, including making homosexuality legal after it had been listed as a "mental disorder" for so long.

What was that - about fifteen years or so before the World Health Organization took it off their list of mental illness?

Well...I wouldn't consider myself a "liberal" as such, but i'm sure there's plenty out there who would not make a distinction.

Anyway, I get shit done every day. I'm quite regular, thanks. :)

Quality.

Pffft..Jesus wasn't a liberal...did he want to increase your taxes? Did he want Jews to rule? Did he want homosexuals to have unnatural privileges? Did he want men not to live by their own means (communism)?

You want liberals to start doing shit?

The liberal voice is already overwhelming represented in American society.

We have to fight to maintain our heritage. You are already winning.

Nah, he only WAS a Jew.

What was that - about fifteen years or so before the World Health Organization took it off their list of mental illness?

The Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982... when did WHO finally come to their senses?

Pffft..Jesus wasn't a liberal... Did he want Jews to rule?
Chek the Christmas Carols. First Noel, is the one with this line I think. "A king of Israel is born". Jesus wanted the Jews to rule, with him as their king. After the Jews said, you aren't the prophesied Chosen One, he up and made his own religion with a lot of help from Saul/Paul.

We have to fight to maintain our heritage. You are already winning.
If it's a heritage that lacks the generosity and love of the Lord, it is not worth keeping.

Chek the Christmas Carols. First Noel, is the one with this line I think. "A king of Israel is born". Jesus wanted the Jews to rule, with him as their king. After the Jews said, you aren't the prophesied Chosen One, he up and made his own religion with a lot of help from Saul/Paul.

Oh, how imperfect is your reading.

You want liberals to start doing shit?
What 'shit'? You can't 'do' shit.

Troll!

*snip*

You're funny. :)

Okay, so there seems to be a person or two out there who feels that liberals only know how to criticize, and never actually accomplish anything.

I am looking for support.

Can anyone give me examples of liberals getting things done?

I will limit myself to one example to get things started. Nelson Mandela. Labeled a notorious terrorist by the United States, Mandela through great personal sacrifice brought democracy to South Africa over the protest of the United States.

Uh...the U.S. didn't "protest" democracy in South Africa.

And to be fair, while Mandela himself was not a terrorist, many in the ANC were. Have you heard of the necklace method of killing?

Although, to be further fair, the apartheid government at its best was even more bad than the ANC at its worst.

Uh...the U.S. didn't "protest" democracy in South Africa.

True. Ronald Reagan called America's then-relationship with South Africa "Constructive Engagement" - which in real terms meant, "Business as Usual".

To my mind, anyone who "does" shit is a disgusting pervert.

^=.x&

Anyway, with your intended meaning being taken to be "Liberals doing [useful] things", liberals have done a lot of useful things, some of which have been already mentioned. As a whole, progressives accomplish far more than traditionalists, mainly because traditionalists are opposed to change whereas progressives embrace it. As most of the "things" that have been "done" have involved change in some way, you can draw your own conclusions.

American and French Revolutions.

The French Revolution didn't accomplish much, as the French went back to their strongman ruler tradition afterward with Napoleon - the Sun King.

The French Revolution didn't accomplish much, as the French went back to their strongman ruler tradition afterward with Napoleon - the Sun King.

*sigh*

Go read a book.

Preferably one about the French Revolution.

*sigh*

Go read a book.

Preferably one about the French Revolution.

??? I studied the French revolution back in High School (part of the curriculum). Do you deny that the Sun King followed the French revolution? And that the French were rebelling against precisely the type of unfettered rule by decree that the Sun King represented??

??? I studied the French revolution back in High School (part of the curriculum). Do you deny that the Sun King followed the French revolution?

Yes, yes I do. In order for the French to be led by the "Sun King" after the Revolution, they'd've first have had to dig Louis Quatorze back up - not to mention re-instating the Monarchy. Ringing any bells for you now, Ceia?

Evidently you didn't glean nearly enough from those high school history courses as you seem to think.

And that the French were rebelling against precisely the type of unfettered rule by decree that the Sun King represented??

That would depend on just who you're claiming was known widely as the "Sun King", wouldn't it?

Pillock.

True. Ronald Reagan called America's then-relationship with South Africa "Constructive Engagement" - which in real terms meant, "Business as Usual".

Just because we worked with them doesn't mean we approved of their internal policies. Just like how we worked with the U.S.S.R. to stop Hitler. Not that I'm saying working with S.A. was right or justified, but still.

Just because we worked with them doesn't mean we approved of their internal policies. Just like how we worked with the U.S.S.R. to stop Hitler. Not that I'm saying working with S.A. was right or justified, but still.

Then what are you saying? Sounds to me like the only reasonable response you can give is that working with SA - a pariah nation at that time - was wrong. Unethical. Not justified.

So where does, "but still" figure into it?

Oops my bad, I quickly googled "Sun King"

Anyway, Napoleon ended the First Republic by crowning himself Emperor. The French revolutionaries hardly had the restoration of a monarchy in mind when they beheaded the King.

Reagan was indeed a cheerleader for racial segregation in South Africa, even when his own party was not.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749892845.html

The dark side of Ronald Reagan
June 12, 2004

You may not have read it this week, but this American hero was an apologist for apartheid, writes Derrick Jackson.

President Bush proclaimed this week: "Ronald Reagan believed that God takes the side of justice and that America has a special calling to oppose tyranny and defend freedom." In the first three days of news reports on the death of the former US president, not a single major American newspaper, television station, or politician dared to exhume the following counterpoint to the Reagan's legacy: "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian."

These were the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, spoken on Capitol Hill at a US committee hearing in late 1984. It was just after Reagan's easy re-election. Tutu had just been awarded the Nobel peace prize for his non-violent struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Throughout the United States, a rising number of Americans were calling for American companies to stop doing business there.

Reagan ignored them. The president of so-called sunny optimism attempted to blind Americans with his policy of "constructive engagement" with the white minority regime in Pretoria. All constructive engagement did was give the white minority more time to mow down the black majority in the streets and keep dreamers of democracy, such as Nelson Mandela, behind bars.
Advertisement Advertisement

In the weeks leading up to his appearance on Capitol Hill, Tutu said in speeches that it seemed that the Reagan White House saw "blacks as expendable" in South Africa. The white government forced black people from prized lands and into horrid townships. Migratory labour laws split families for 11 months at a time. Education was gutted for black children. There was virtually no due process for black defendants. Tutu said it was "reminiscent of Hitler's Aryan madness". Tutu declared that "constructive engagement is an abomination, an unmitigated disaster".

On Capitol Hill, Tutu became a public relations disaster for Reagan. Tutu started off the hearing by saying apartheid itself "is evil, is immoral, is un-Christian . . ." I was there, and all breathing stopped.

Tutu continued: "In my view, the Reagan administration's support and collaboration with it is equally immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian . . . You are either for or against apartheid and not by rhetoric. You are either in favour of evil or you are in favour of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral."

Tutu received an unprecedented standing ovation by the committee. Even Reagan's Republican allies told the South African embassy they would reluctantly support sanctions if Pretoria did not move to end apartheid.

Reagan was not moved. Over the remainder of his presidency, at least 3000 people would die, mostly at the hands of the South African police and military. Another 20,000, including 6000 children, according to one estimate by a human rights group, would be arrested under "state of emergency" decrees.

Yet Reagan had the gall to say in 1985 that the "reformist administration" of South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country". In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with crocodile tears, claiming that they would hurt black workers, who were already ridiculously impoverished.

Reagan's go-slow speech was denounced by Tutu, who said: "I found it quite nauseating. I think the West, for my part, can go to hell . . . Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. He sits there like the great, big white chief of old."

Later in 1986, Reagan made his greatest demonstration yet that black bodies were "expendable". Congress had finally had enough of the carnage to vote for limited sanctions. Reagan vetoed them. Congress overrode the veto. Reagan proceeded to put no muscle behind the sanctions. Mandela remained in jail and at least 2000 political prisoners remained detained without trial.

In 1987, Reagan published a report that said additional sanctions "would not be helpful". The gleeful South African foreign minister, Roelof Botha, said Reagan "and his administration have an understanding of the reality of South Africa".

Reagan's and Botha's "reality" was rendered a fantasy by the force of world opinion and a more enlightened leadership inside South Africa.

Only a year after Reagan left office, Mandela was released. One can only wonder how much sooner he would have been released and how many lives would have been saved had Reagan not behaved like the white chief of old.

President Bush this week said Reagan believed God was on the side of justice. On South Africa, Reagan was on the side of one of the most demonic governments on the face of the earth. He chose to assist tyranny and ignore brutality.

Ronald Reagan's death has been followed by relentless descriptions of him as a president of sunny optimism. On South Africa he was no sunshine. He was the cloud who dimmed the skies as apartheid rained death upon black people.

You so sure about that? You know that a lot of "progress" was accomplished by conservatives, like the early abolitionists who were those god damn dirty Jesus freaks and civil rights, a fucking bible-thumping Southern Baptist!

Religous does not mean conservative. Even Air America has several shows hosted by clergymen. Conservative means, among other things, preserving the status quo.

That's what makes the abolitionists liberals, if not radicals. They were trying to overthrow the status quo. There's a reason that the most conservative parts of the country now are the places that fought to preserve slavery the hardest. They were the most conservative then too.

However, they did accomplish things. They developed a culture that earned America the scorn of the world for hundreds of years.

Occaisionally a liberal like JFK will come along and win the addoration of the world back by setting up things like the Peace Corp. But then we'll shoot him and start the Vietnam war. Yes it was started by a Democrat, but he was clearly following up on the conservative projects started by Eisenhower.