Comments about ‘Liberalism today is a shadow of its former self’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Oct. 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Saint George, UT

conservatism today...

the protection of accumulated assets transfered from the middle class...

arranged by sneering plutocrats.


Hayden, ID

Liberalism teachs people that they have the right to produce nothing yet benefit from those who do!

Huntsville, UT


Liberalism teaches people that they have a RIGHT to enjoy some of the rewards for the things THEY manufacture, not just the business owners.

Conservatism teaches people that ONLY the business owners have a right to the profits generated by the WORK of the industrious laborers.

Hayden, ID

@ Ranchhand. You are probably right! That's why welfare recipients are all conservatives. Not! Liberalism needs "victims" to survive. That's why we have Obamacare, re-disribution and food stamps, for the "victims".

provo, Utah

Mountainman is fighting a straw enemy. I'm a liberal and all I want is to NOT be a poor, powerless, begging slump that conservatism has always made out of men. Conservatives favorite em0loyees are the powerless, desparate of China. The wealth of the world was not meant to be hoarded by a few people.

You can't deserve more than you need any more than you can deserve salvation.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Had president Obama proposed an LBJ style agenda, Mr. Gerson and his political allies would be calling him a communist.

Wanda B. Rich
Provo, UT

Today's liberalism is yesterday's moderate conservativism. Which means today's conservativism is what? Whatever you want to label it, it is extreme, certainly something Ronald Reagan could never have supported.

Hayden, ID

Freedomingood. If you don't want to be poor, don't be! Develop job skills and market them to the highest bider employer! Liberalism always creates dependancy and more poverty! That's the difference and it is no straw enemy.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Liberalism is alive and well, even in right wing Utah. Over the past 40 years conservatives and the republican party have sought, with too much sucess, to demonize liberals, who believe that goverment can and should be a positive factor in advancing the condition of those less advantaged. They call them Socialist (which has been turned into an evil word). The demonize liberals by suggesting that they are all anti family, anti religion, and anti traditional values. They call them "tax and spend liberals" when the truth is that more spending has been done since Reagan by conservatives than by liberals. They call them big goverment idealogs when the biggest expansion of government has actually occured more under so called conservative Republicans.

We need not worry about Liberals, they will always be around to push for change when change is needed. And we will always have conservatives to keep Liberals from giving away the store. But I wish that conservatives would be less mean spirited about it. I see so much meaness in some of these editorials and right wing comments, and even hatred.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

There is good news and bad news for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid etc. The good news is: God is a liberal. The bad news is: He votes Republican.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Gotta love it when a repub reports on liberals.

It's like going to a Baptist minister to learn about Mormons.

American Fork, UT

I agree with the premise of the article. Proper liberalism has given way to soft conservatism. The democrats had the chance to step on the republicans' throats for a while and blew it. We should have single payer health care now. Funding for the endowment for the arts, the FDA, EPA and most other departments should be secure by now, all of it at the expense of military spending. A lot of things should be better than they are, but history and mission creep has a way of taking us off track.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

There is no direct relationship between liberal thinking and liberal politics
Therein lies the probelm

Wanda B. Rich
Provo, UT

Perhaps the most telling belief of the new extreme conservative movement is "American exceptionalism," which is just another name for nationalism and is very different from patriotism. Nationalism brought the world such wonderful gifts as Nazi Germany. Nationalism is also very good at labeling other groups who disagree with their agenda. The label "socialist" certainly comes to mind.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

As a Liberal American I tend to think of people as being the important issue of the world. I like the American creed that says that all people are equally important and should be afforded equal opportunity to succeed in the quest of the good life.

Conservatives seem to think of people in the same way in which a farmer regards his cattle.
People in the conservative picture are to be nurtured, guided and used according to the purposes defined by so-called enlightened leaders.

While both promote the idea that a person has success mostly according to his own efforts, conservatives seem to place more obstacles in the way of a person than do liberals. Conservative define the end of equal opportunity at birth whereas liberals would like to extend the equal opportunity further along a persons life.

Liberals might believe that necessities of life like the availability of food, clothing, health care, education and such should not be the fault of the person and only the extra effort for success beyond existence should count for success. It comes down to being fair about the distribution of equal opportunity.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

You know, as a liberal, there's nothing I like more than having a conservative point out what he thinks I should believe in. It's almost as fun as when a Baptist tells me, a Mormon, what he thinks Mormons should believe. "Back in the day, you guys believed in marryin' lots of females. That was way better! Made you SO much easier to attack!" Thanks, pal. 'Preciate ya.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"....the Obama agenda also reflects a broader shift in American liberalism, which has become reactive."
- Michael Gerson

That's necessarily so, Mr. Gerson. Liberalism became programmatically defined beginning in the 1930s providing a visible and vulnerable target for its opposition. Hence, liberalism's legacy is now endangered by conservatives who would rescind much of its hard-earned victories. But if conservatism, as classically defined, is defense of the status quo, then liberalism has truly become the new conservatism of our times, tasked with defending and reinforcing its gains for posterity.


Liberalism is alive and doing very well, thank you very much. Looking back at the movement in the 50's and 60's, you see great progress being made in changing actions. That part was reltively easy because the actions were heinous and had very visible effects on the victims of racism, sexism, environmental degradation, etc.

Today's the actions are not as overt and liberalism is striving to change thoughts and beliefs. That is much harder work and the results can take a generation or two to show results.

We are still here. We are still committed. And we are stll changing the world.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Wanda B. Rich" you are wrong. Todays liberalism is even further left than before.

Today's liberalism is yesterday's Communism. Just look at the reactions here. You have comments here ranging from advocacy of striping businessmen of ownership of their businesses by giving their employees the "RIGHT to enjoy some of the rewards for the things THEY manufacture". You also have people stating that people have the right to healthcare, food, clothing, and housing.

All a worker has a right to is their time. They do not own the business they work for, nor do they own the equipment they use. They sell their time, and are compensated for it. If they don't like the compensation rate, they are free to find new employment.

If a person doesn't want to work, do they deserve food, clothing, and shelter?

If you want to look at who wants to help people the most, just look at the last 100 years of liberal acts. They gave us segregation in the military and Jim Crow laws. They also blocked integration in schools, and did not support civil rights like conservatives did.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What societal problem has government ever solved?

Do we have less poverty in America than we had when FDR told us that government was the solution?

Do we have less poverty in America than when LBJ gave us the "Great Society"?

Do we have fewer unwed mothers?

Do we have fewer drug addicts?

Do we have fewer people on welfare?

Just what has government done with our money?

What progress has been made?

Is it possible that government is not the solution, but that it is the problem?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments