Comments on: Power Line’s John Hinderaker won’t address prior criticisms of Paul Krugman http://bloggasm.com/power-lines-john-hinderaker-wont-address-prior-criticisms-of-paul-krugman Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:39:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Bob Cormack http://bloggasm.com/power-lines-john-hinderaker-wont-address-prior-criticisms-of-paul-krugman/comment-page-1#comment-79238 Bob Cormack Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:52:49 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/?p=1709#comment-79238 You say: "...perhaps the reason that these immensely intelligent and talented people prefer liberalism is simply because reality favors liberalism." I would suggest a somewhat different reason, as stated by George Orwell: "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." Actually, I would agree with you, if I thought you meant Classical Liberalism -- you know; personal, economic, and political freedom, free market capitalism, etc. -- John Kennedy's philosophy, in other words. A good case can be made that the philosophy of Classical Liberalism is responsible for the amazing world of plenty that we have today (compared to, say, 200 years ago). In that respect, reality does favor liberalism. Classical liberalism, however, doesn't really exist in the current Democratic party. JFK would be kicked out of today's Democratic party, just like Joe Lieberman was. Todays "progressives" (crypto-socialists with fascistic tendencies) are far from liberal, as the word was understood 100 years ago, and their political philosophy hasn't been treated well by history over the last century. So, if you're using today's definition of "liberal", I'll have to side with Orwell. You say: “…perhaps the reason that these immensely intelligent and talented people prefer liberalism is simply because reality favors liberalism.”

I would suggest a somewhat different reason, as stated by George Orwell: “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”

Actually, I would agree with you, if I thought you meant Classical Liberalism — you know; personal, economic, and political freedom, free market capitalism, etc. — John Kennedy’s philosophy, in other words.

A good case can be made that the philosophy of Classical Liberalism is responsible for the amazing world of plenty that we have today (compared to, say, 200 years ago). In that respect, reality does favor liberalism.

Classical liberalism, however, doesn’t really exist in the current Democratic party. JFK would be kicked out of today’s Democratic party, just like Joe Lieberman was.

Todays “progressives” (crypto-socialists with fascistic tendencies) are far from liberal, as the word was understood 100 years ago, and their political philosophy hasn’t been treated well by history over the last century.

So, if you’re using today’s definition of “liberal”, I’ll have to side with Orwell.

]]> By: AZ http://bloggasm.com/power-lines-john-hinderaker-wont-address-prior-criticisms-of-paul-krugman/comment-page-1#comment-79218 AZ Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:59:41 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/?p=1709#comment-79218 Love your last paragraph. In the words of Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Love your last paragraph. In the words of Stephen Colbert: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

]]>