A Quote by Immanuel Wallerstein

What is surprising is that their ideological opponents, the Marxists - the anti-liberals, the representatives of the oppressed working classes - believed in progress with at least as much passion as the liberals.
Instead of 'counterrevolutionaries,' liberals' opponents are called 'haters,' 'those who seek to divide us,' 'tea baggers,' and 'right-wing hate groups.' Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals 'liberals'-and that makes them testy.
It is not surprising that liberals believed in progress. The idea of progress justified the entire transition from feudalism to capitalism. It legitimated the breaking of the remaining opposition to the commodification of everything, and it tended to wipe away all the negatives of capitalism on the grounds that the benefits outweighed, by far, the harm.
There has been a religious revival because - let me put it like this, the people that weren't traditionally religious, conventionally religious, had a religion of their own in my youth. These were liberals who believed in the idea of progress or they were Marxists. Both of these secular religions have broken down.
I'd pretty much debate anybody. I prefer to debate smart liberals. I'm not saying this about Stephen Colbert but, unfortunately, the most famous liberals generally aren't the smartest ones. I have a list of the smarter liberals I recommend.
Firstly, I think the values that underpin all liberals, frankly - classical liberals, all liberals - of respect for the individual and freedom are worth fighting for.
Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers", they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
I don't care if they're Republican liberals or Democrat liberals, they're still liberals. They're not 'moderates.' Don't hit me with that. There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise.
Liberals have a new wish every time their latest wish is granted. Conservatives should make them spell out their principles and ideals. Instead of doing this, conservatives allow liberals to pursue incremental goals without revealing their ultimate destination. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding 'more' while never defining 'enough.' The predictable result is that they always get more, and it's never enough.
The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.
I don't think liberals in the media are really that much different from liberals outside the media.
Democrats believed in "progressivism." They believed in Big Government. But they at least attached optimistic outcomes to it. They really believed they were helping America. They really believed they were helping families, helping people. Now they've just become, "The country's horrible, it's rotten, it needs to be reformed!" The liberals of John F. Kennedy's day did not think there was anything really major wrong with this country.
Look at the way liberals name things. "Net neutrality." It's like Switzerland! They don't take sides, everybody's fair, everything's the same. It's not what it is. Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. By definition, liberals don't believe in competition, and you know that. Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, 'cause there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that's unacceptable. So everything must be the same. Nobody can have more than anybody else.
It's a peculiar thing about liberals. When it comes to middle-class people who are fully capable of caring for themselves, liberals seek to undermine their independence in every way possible. With seductive 'entitlements' like guaranteed retirement, health care, nutrition, education, and jobs, liberals attempt to lure the middle class into dependence on the state. But when it comes to those who are truly incompetent, those whose mental afflictions render them unable to manage their lives at all, liberals are suddenly transformed into absolutists for personal autonomy.
Every program that ever helped working people, from rural electrification to Medicare, was enacted by liberals over the opposition of conservatives. When people tell me they don't like liberals, I ask, "Do you like Social Security? If so, then shut up!"
I expected a lot of flak over my new book, '50 Things Liberals Love to Hate' from, well, liberals. It's not a big shock that the kind of liberals I skewer in the book - the radical, Che Guevara-loving type - have posted scathing reviews at Amazon and written nasty e-mails and voiced opposition to a book they haven't actually read.
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!