Right which is why I dont trust these Modern Liberals because they are deceitful in the way they use and parade around by identifying themselves as Liberals which they are not in the true meaning of what it meant to be a Liberal especially when they use US History to identify themselves with the Classical Liberals of the past.<quoted text>
rationalrevolution.net has had Hit Counter page views since January 21, 2004
This is also on the home page:
A Progressive Foundation for America's Economic Future
They even suggest/provide a link for books on Marxism:
Just because a business or company provides products like trucks/cars to another country "before" it is at war with the U.S. does not mean people with money supported the intent of what became the NAZI movement as we see it from a historical perspective.
Liberal here are trying to make that case and it is deceitful/proprganda, at best.
Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism
In the history of politics, there is only one fundamental, abiding issue: It is individualism vs. collectivism. Do individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, as Thomas Jefferson thought and as the Declaration of Independence deemed self-evident? Or do we have an obligation to live our lives for the community or the state, as most societies have claimed throughout most of history?
Yet if this is the paramount political issue, why is it not forthrightly debated in presidential elections and in other contests for public office? The reason is that American political debates tend to be dominated by modern liberalism and modern conservatism approaches to politics that are properly called sociologies rather than ideologies.
Modern liberalism is not completely collectivist; nor is it completely individualistic. It has elements of both doctrines. The same is true of conservatism. Neither view provides a coherent approach to politics, built up from first principles. Instead, they both reflect a process that is akin to picking items from a dinner menu. What is chosen is a matter of taste rather than a matter of thought. Just as people with similar tastes in food tend to frequent the same restaurants, people with the same tastes in politics tend to vote for the same candidates.
What that leaves us with are candidates, platforms and political parties whose ideas are inconsistent and often incoherent. The thoughtful voter may sometimes vote for the conservative, sometimes for the liberal and sometimes just abstain.
The classical liberal perspective will not solve this problem, but it will help us better understand it.
(Click Link below to continue to read)