PDA

View Full Version : Why libertarianism and indeed far right conservative political doctrine is doomed



Paul Pless
10-27-2014, 09:46 AM
While I admit they are admirable philosophies and I find much attractive in their doctrines. They are doomed to failure for one overwhelming reason. They require a 100% compliance by any society that wishes to adopt them. That will never happen. Other political philosophies don't have this requirement to work. Of course, there exist other valid criticisms of extreme conservationism - but this is the fundamental reason why they are doomed to fail.

Like Hanley said on another thread, "you can't legislate morality. . ."

David G
10-27-2014, 10:58 AM
One can only hope.

Bubba L.
10-27-2014, 04:54 PM
Got my fingers crossed.

Gene

BCarp
10-27-2014, 05:42 PM
I think these are the fundamental "admirable philosophies" of the libertarian right that Paul refers to: individual liberty, personal responsibility, a free market economy, limited powers for central government. And I would have to agree that an ever-decreasing percentage of the population adhere to these values. Looking at historic trends, I think Paul is correct: the libertarian/conservative doctrine is indeed doomed, sadly.

Norman Bernstein
10-27-2014, 05:46 PM
ANY dogmatic ideology... i.e., an ideology that holds extreme tenets... is doomed from the start. It makes the presumption that a plurality of an electorate will agree with every tenet of the ideology.... and we know that has NEVER been the case.

Successful ideologies.... or, I should probably call them 'policies'... are the ones that recognize diversity of thought. The ones that don't recognize diversity of thought are dead before they start.

seanz
10-27-2014, 05:50 PM
Dooooooomed, I say, doooooomed.

RonW
10-27-2014, 05:53 PM
Well paul you got it exactly backwards. Social programs require maximum participation to work.

And the Paul's are getting standing ovation at colleges all around the country.

The young generation are thinking for themselves and can see the failure on the part of the government and the constant violation of freedom.

But it is hard to see when you have been a liberal all of your life and don't want to see the failure...

Norman Bernstein
10-27-2014, 05:55 PM
And the Paul's are getting standing ovation at colleges all around the country.

Does polling indicate that his philosophy is overwhelmingly popular?

Or is it more the case that he has a loyal, but narrow, constituency?

I'm not denying that he has his accolytes... but your attempts to intimate that his psuedo-libertarian philosophy is sweeping the nation, is just more wishful thinking.

leikec
10-27-2014, 06:01 PM
Well paul you got it exactly backwards. Social programs require maximum participation to work.

And the Paul's are getting standing ovation at colleges all around the country.

The young generation are thinking for themselves and can see the failure on the part of the government and the constant violation of freedom.

But it is hard to see when you have been a liberal all of your life and don't want to see the failure...


Paul has been a liberal all his life? I bet that's news to him....

I just bet you were a big George Wallace fan. :D

Jeff C

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 06:04 PM
We should have more food for analysis in another week. I originally had some hope for the Tea Party because it does speak to legitimate gripes about government but when the big money jumped in and queered the deal I began to lose interest. Some way has to be found to stop the buying of political parties and elections.

Norman Bernstein
10-27-2014, 06:06 PM
We should have more food for analysis in another week. I originally had some hope for the Tea Party because it does speak to legitimate gripes about government but when the big money jumped in and queered the deal I began to lose interest. Some way has to be found to stop the buying of political parties and elections.

Short of a constitutional amendment, or the unexpected demise of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, it's not going to happen. Government is for sale these days. The best any of us can hope for is that our side raises and spends the most money.

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 06:08 PM
Paul has been a liberal all his life? I bet that's news to him....

I just bet you were a big George Wallace fan. :D

Jeff C Actually George Wallace addressed some very timely issues and had a positive effect on working class involvement in politics. Remember Michigan and Maryland? But his support of segregation marginalized him. Ironically, he later did a 180 on that and became the darling of the black voters of Alabama.

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 06:11 PM
Short of a constitutional amendment, or the unexpected demise of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, it's not going to happen. Government is for sale these days. The best any of us can hope for is that our side raises and spends the most money. I want a change in the definition of corporation, and suitable legislation to keep them out of politics. The candidate who starts talking about that will get my support.

PeterSibley
10-27-2014, 06:12 PM
Hanley , remember that the PR industry in the US is the biggest, best and most powerful propaganda purveyor in history and it works for the money .... and remember who has the money.

Bubba L.
10-27-2014, 06:12 PM
I think these are the fundamental "admirable philosophies" of the libertarian right that Paul refers to: individual liberty, personal responsibility, a free market economy, limited powers for central government. And I would have to agree that an ever-decreasing percentage of the population adhere to these values. Looking at historic trends, I think Paul is correct: the libertarian/conservative doctrine is indeed doomed, sadly.

I haven't seen a lot of self identified libertarians give more than lip service to personal responsibility. Usually they're more of the "screw you I got mine" breed.
Also, libertarians have no sense of social responsibility. They're unable to see that all they have is because of the cooperation of those before them who formed a society that cooperated toward a common set of goals.

Gene

Norman Bernstein
10-27-2014, 06:14 PM
I want a change in the definition of corporation, and suitable legislation to keep them out of politics. The candidate who starts talking about that will get my support.

I don't believe it can be done legislatively, in light of the SCOTUS decision.

Paul Pless
10-27-2014, 06:14 PM
Paul has been a liberal all his life? I bet that's news to him....

I just bet you were a big George Wallace fan. :D

Jeff Cwell, there were two george wallaces, maybe even three. . .


Its difficult not to admire these words from Wallace, responding largely to Ronald Reagan in January of 1983.


"Some of you have summoned me in your weakness,'' Wallace said from the inaugural platform in January 1983. "All of you must sustain me by your strength."

Then he directed his words to the strong.

First the federal government:

"TVA must lower rates charged small farmers, and the FHA stop foreclosures and other punitive actions against farmers. Without the food they produce, he said, people become "nothing more than a prattling mob of rabble grasping at one another for survival."

The USDA must "at once release surplus food commodities over and above the butter and cheese allocations"--food was "piling up in America while people go hungry."

Then to the bankers :

"... avoid foreclosures and dispossession ... leave their personal property undisturbed ... extend the time for payments."

"One of our biggest mistakes as a nation," he said, "... is that the America that emerged following the second World War was one for which we were not totally prepared.

"We rebuilt Europe, expanded our factories, produced more goods than any nation in the world. But in the process, there fell from our grasp a great truth--the truth that the measure of the strength of any great nation is not the quantity of its resources, but the quality of life of its citizens.

"And now, we see the big bankers of this nation and the world showing reckless disregard for good business practices, trying to make a big profit, until they have endangered the financial stability of the free world."

"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay;
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade;
A breath can make them, as breath has made;
But a bold peasantry -- a bold middle class -- their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied."

"... And all the while debt, the root of bonded labor, sits at our dinner table like a hungry stranger. All over the world, sovereign nations face default in the face of international bankers, and agree to lower their people's living standards and pay still higher interest rates to stay afloat. But ... it is the average man who is called upon to feed this hungry stranger."

And to the pyramid-building odd couple of 1980s wealth, the newly rich and the newly temporal:

"We recognize and applaud the desires of those of great individual wealth to build among us monuments to high culture and entertainment.

"We recognize and applaud the great temples of worship and Christian education that religious denominations seek to build and assert upon our landscape to glorify almighty God.

"But for God's sake, let us also hear the sighs of the hungry and the cold among us. Let us do unto the least of these, and God will reward us with his blessings in His way in His time.

"No one can be rich, as long as there are those among us who are hungry.

"Any nation that forgets its poor will lose its soul."

BCarp
10-27-2014, 06:16 PM
I haven't seen a lot of self identified libertarians give more than lip service to personal responsibility. Usually they're more of the "screw you I got mine" breed.

Gene

"Screw you; I got mine - and you're responsible for getting yours; I'm not."

Norman Bernstein
10-27-2014, 06:17 PM
Its difficult not to admire these words from Wallace, responding largely to Ronald Reagan in January of 1983.

When the words are like those, it matters not whose mouth it comes from.

johnw
10-27-2014, 06:18 PM
I think these are the fundamental "admirable philosophies" of the libertarian right that Paul refers to: individual liberty, personal responsibility, a free market economy, limited powers for central government. And I would have to agree that an ever-decreasing percentage of the population adhere to these values. Looking at historic trends, I think Paul is correct: the libertarian/conservative doctrine is indeed doomed, sadly.

That's liberalism. When they try to make libertarianism practical and palatable to the public, they end up back at liberalism.

BCarp
10-27-2014, 06:25 PM
That's liberalism. When they try to make libertarianism practical and palatable to the public, they end up back at liberalism.

That is indeed classic liberalism. The word has come to mean something different in modern times.

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 06:26 PM
well, there were two george wallaces, maybe even three. . .


Its difficult not to admire these words from Wallace, responding largely to Ronald Reagan in January of 1983. We need a new "George Wallace" now, sans the segregation issue, to stir the pot and rouse the populace to action.

johnw
10-27-2014, 06:38 PM
That is indeed classic liberalism. The word has come to mean something different in modern times.

Only because the opponents of liberalism want to redefine it.

Chris Coose
10-27-2014, 06:42 PM
"Screw you; I got mine - and you're responsible for getting yours; I'm not."

"And goddamnit I shall be collecting on that welfare ponzi scheme called social security...... bet your ass I will."

leikec
10-27-2014, 06:49 PM
Actually George Wallace addressed some very timely issues and had a positive effect on working class involvement in politics. Remember Michigan and Maryland? But his support of segregation marginalized him. Ironically, he later did a 180 on that and became the darling of the black voters of Alabama.


I imagine Ron would be more attracted to the original, unabridged version.

Jeff C

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 07:00 PM
"And goddamnit I shall be collecting on that welfare ponzi scheme called social security...... bet your ass I will." I already am.:D

Mike Erkkinen
10-27-2014, 07:10 PM
Does polling indicate that his philosophy is overwhelmingly popular?

Or is it more the case that he has a loyal, but narrow, constituency?

I'm not denying that he has his accolytes... but your attempts to intimate that his psuedo-libertarian philosophy is sweeping the nation, is just more wishful thinking.

I'd say "narrow but loyal" is correct. I believe the main reasons for this are twofold: 1- the idea of small government doesn't benefit any current administration or it's corporate sponsors, and 2- there are big holes in the libertarian platform on issues such as environmental stewardship.

zertgold
10-27-2014, 07:22 PM
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."
-W. Somerset Maugham

The OP's statement reminds me of the logic of an Morphine addict.

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 07:31 PM
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."
-W. Somerset Maugham

The OP's statement reminds me of the logic of an Morphine addict. Could you please explain the comparison to the "logic of a Morphine adict"? I'm a little slow...

RonW
10-27-2014, 07:43 PM
Could you please explain the comparison to the "logic of a Morphine adict"? I'm a little slow...

The more you have or do, the more you want and or need, till it finally kills you by a overdose.......

skuthorp
10-27-2014, 07:51 PM
Otherwise known as the law of in increasing expectations. If you have a regular overtime payment and the OT stops, you still feel entitled to the payment. Similarly if you do overtime for your employer for a time without payment this then becomes 'normal' and expected working hours, and eventually you'll be asked for more free time still.

WszystekPoTrochu
10-27-2014, 08:15 PM
Like Hanley said on another thread, "you can't legislate morality. . ."
Libertarianism legislating morality? Well that's amusing.

Of course one can legislate morality. Every system legislates morality to some point, disallowing murder or theft. But what libertarianism does is close to moral anarchism, so I don't see that point.

I still think that libertarianism will not catch on, as people are willing to give up much of their freedoms in exchange for at least illusion of safety. But argumenting that neither libertarianism nor conservatism will not catch on as they would need 100% compliance... no, that's not how state works. Putting aside the fact that every doctrine can be implemented against society's will, as it happened even with democracy. I'd risk saying that an average country has 1/3 to 2/3 support of the system it is using. Even Liechtenstein does not have 100% compliance.
Far right political doctrine happened in the past, why are You so certain it will stay in the past? There's already a handful of countries that heavily legislate morality but don't really have control over their markets.

I do hope though that any kind of totally uncontrolled market, especially libertarianism, will not happen.


Looking at historic trends, I think Paul is correct: the libertarian/conservative doctrine is indeed doomed, sadly.

If You look at historic trends You'll notice that steady giving up on personal freedom progresses until a flash point, after which the risk connected with being independent is less concerning that feeding own shackles further. This process is already underway in Hungary or France.

johnw
10-27-2014, 08:25 PM
If you look at historic trends, most people for most of history have been ruled by tyrants and kings. Liberalism was supposed to change that.

seanz
10-27-2014, 08:39 PM
If you look at historic trends, most people for most of history have been ruled by tyrants and kings. Liberalism was supposed to change that.

Old habits die hard. :)


Here's some fun reading.........Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic).

I like what it had to say about bullying behavior, amongst other things.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
10-27-2014, 08:43 PM
Well paul you got it exactly backwards. Social programs require maximum participation to work.

And the Paul's are getting standing ovation at colleges all around the country.

The young generation are thinking for themselves and can see the failure on the part of the government and the constant violation of freedom.

But it is hard to see when you have been a liberal all of your life and don't want to see the failure...


http://www.newyorker.com/images/2014/01/20/cartoons/140120_cartoon_061_a17976_p465.jpg

RonW
10-27-2014, 08:53 PM
If you look at historic trends, most people for most of history have been ruled by tyrants and kings. Liberalism was supposed to change that.

To stop tyranny and rule by kings, it wasn't liberalism, but actually the american revolution and the formation of a new government with a constitution .

Liberalism didn't come to america till the great depression and the new deal with FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

johnw
10-27-2014, 08:54 PM
Old habits die hard. :)


Here's some fun reading.........Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic).

I like what it had to say about bullying behavior, amongst other things.

Well, it's interesting, but, does he really think bullying in the workplace is something new? Or the preoccupation with success?

seanz
10-27-2014, 08:56 PM
Well, it's interesting, but, does he really think bullying in the workplace is something new?

I doubt that he does, but with such well educated managers, why does it exist at all?

johnw
10-27-2014, 09:01 PM
To stop tyranny and rule by kings, it wasn't liberalism, but actually the american revolution and the formation of a new government with a constitution .

Liberalism didn't come to america till the great depression and the new deal with FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

From your link:


The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5) The Constitution of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States) of 1787 set up the first modern republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic), with sovereignty in the people (not in a monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers) recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by 1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution), plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South).

From the time of the American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution) to the present day, America has extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states abolished many restrictions on voting for white males in the early 19th century. The Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in 1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow) system of the South between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Movement) and new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6)



So, according to the link you gave me, you're wrong. Yes, there have been changes in liberalism, based on extending freedom to more people and trying to ensure the survival of capitalism when the Marxists were claiming it was discredited by the Depression, but liberalism is the system enshrined in the American Constitution.

The revolutionary idea behind liberalism is that the people should be able to decide who rules them, and that means having the freedom to express their discontent and discuss remedies.

RonW
10-27-2014, 09:05 PM
From your link:



So, according to the link you gave me, you're wrong. Yes, there have been changes in liberalism, based on extending freedom to more people and trying to ensure the survival of capitalism when the Marxists were claiming it was discredited by the Depression, but liberalism is the system enshrined in the American Constitution.

The revolutionary idea behind liberalism is that the people should be able to decide who rules them, and that means having the freedom to express their discontent and discuss remedies.

From the link................


Since the 1930s, without a qualifier the term "liberalism" in the United States usually refers to "modern liberalism", a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It is a form of social liberalism, whose accomplishments include the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Act in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

According to Louis Hartz, liberalism in the United States differs from liberalism elsewhere in the world because America never had a resident hereditary aristocracy,[3] and so avoided the worst of the class warfare that swept Europe.[4]

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 09:09 PM
If you look at historic trends, most people for most of history have been ruled by tyrants and kings. Liberalism was supposed to change that. Tyrants and kings have morphed into Banksters and Plutocrats.

RonW
10-27-2014, 09:13 PM
Tyrants and kings have morphed into Banksters and Plutocrats.

And politicians, Jay Rockerfeller comes to mind..........

Durnik
10-27-2014, 09:30 PM
We need a new "George Wallace" now, sans the segregation issue, to stir the pot and rouse the populace to action.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Elizabeth_Warren_CFPB.jpg/175px-Elizabeth_Warren_CFPB.jpg





I'd say "narrow but loyal" is correct. I believe the main reasons for this are twofold: 1- the idea of small government doesn't benefit any current administration or it's corporate sponsors, and 2- there are big holes in the libertarian platform on issues such as environmental stewardship.

Indeed, one could say issues such as environmental stewardship can't even find a toe hold in the Libertarian Platform - & that's the killer for me.

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 09:36 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Elizabeth_Warren_CFPB.jpg/175px-Elizabeth_Warren_CFPB.jpg






Indeed, one could say issues such as environmental stewardship can't even find a toe hold in the Libertarian Platform - & that's the killer for me.

enjoy
bobby Indeed she does have some desirable qualities and potential. Refreshing to see her face rather than (ugh) Hillary.

Waddie
10-27-2014, 09:55 PM
I know several immigrant (Hispanic) small business owners. Right now they usually vote Democrat but their core values are very conservative. Even if conservativism declines in the short term because of their (supposedly) screwed up policies, liberals will screw things up enough so that a new conservative movement will emerge that will be on a par with progressives, perhaps exceed them. The pendulum always swings; mostly because once one side thinks they have buried the other, they start doing stupid things that get them into trouble all over again.

regards,
Waddie

Durnik
10-27-2014, 09:56 PM
Indeed she does have some desirable qualities and potential. Refreshing to see her face rather than (ugh) Hillary.

I hear you - there are a _lot_ of people (other than to the right) who don't like Hillary.

& many would much rather enthusiastically vote for Warren/Sanders.

The problem would then be getting a Congress that will work with the Executive instead of trying to destroy everything.

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 10:18 PM
I hear you - there are a _lot_ of people (other than to the right) who don't like Hillary.

& many would much rather enthusiastically vote for Warren/Sanders.

The problem would then be getting a Congress that will work with the Executive instead of trying to destroy everything.

enjoy
bobby Warren has a long way to go before she could be considered for the Presidency, and many deficiencies some of which are impossible to overcome. For one, she has no military or foreign policy experience. But who knows what the "straights of the times" will call for in the future. Meanwhile her strong suits are her solid education (even if it is Harvard) and legal experience and her willingness to confront the Banksters (unlike Hillary who is in bed with them). If she were to come out favoring the 2nd Amendment and affirming the rights of gun owners I would probably roll over like a puppy...:d

Durnik
10-27-2014, 10:28 PM
For one, she has no military or foreign policy experience.

This is ridiculous. While military experience is a negative in my view, in your's it's good - & Bushes only military experience was hot dogging planes for a while & then quitting (which became a pattern of his life) - ntm, he had (& developed) no, none, zero, nada foreign policy experience. You're gonna have to do better than that.




If she were to come out favoring the 2nd Amendment and affirming the rights of gun owners I would probably roll over like a puppy...:d


I'll send her a text.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
10-27-2014, 10:50 PM
This is ridiculous. While military experience is a negative in my view, in your's it's good - & Bushes only military experience was hot dogging planes for a while & then quitting (which became a pattern of his life) - ntm, he had (& developed) no, none, zero, nada foreign policy experience. You're gonna have to do better than that.




I'll send her a text.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby Really, bobby; at our level of intellectual mutual respect you should be ashamed of yourself for playing the "Bush" card.:ycool:

WszystekPoTrochu
10-28-2014, 03:56 AM
The pendulum always swings; mostly because once one side thinks they have buried the other, they start doing stupid things that get them into trouble all over again

Conservatives voting for dems are not a result of dems doing something good, but reps doing something really bad. I'd say it has nothing to do with political programme, too.

The pendulum swings on both axes, but not only as a result of party sloppiness. The society as a whole likes to stay at the middle grounds, politicians live from dragging it away in predetermined direction. Finding a reasonable compromise is of course harder when having only two parties to choose from.

Bubba L.
10-28-2014, 11:13 AM
I know several immigrant (Hispanic) small business owners. Right now they usually vote Democrat but their core values are very conservative. Even if conservativism declines in the short term because of their (supposedly) screwed up policies, liberals will screw things up enough so that a new conservative movement will emerge that will be on a par with progressives, perhaps exceed them. The pendulum always swings; mostly because once one side thinks they have buried the other, they start doing stupid things that get them into trouble all over again.

regards,
Waddie

Evidence that Republicans are no longer conservative but are increasingly right wing-nut, while Democrats are increasingly conservative except for socially. Republicans have screwed things up so badly that even with 6 years of Democratic leadership it's still a long road ahead of us. All the progress of the Clinton administration was destroyed by Dubya in his first few months in office and then it just got worse. With all the Republican obstruction to fixing things is it any wonder that Obama hasn't gotten us completely back onto our feet?

Gene

hanleyclifford
10-28-2014, 11:28 AM
Evidence that Republicans are no longer conservative but are increasingly right wing-nut, while Democrats are increasingly conservative except for socially. Republicans have screwed things up so badly that even with 6 years of Democratic leadership it's still a long road ahead of us. All the progress of the Clinton administration was destroyed by Dubya in his first few months in office and then it just got worse. With all the Republican obstruction to fixing things is it any wonder that Obama hasn't gotten us completely back onto our feet?

Gene Ach! du Lieber! What are we going to do if our Hispanic folks start voting with the angry old white bois?

Bubba L.
10-28-2014, 12:16 PM
Ach! du Lieber! What are we going to do if our Hispanic folks start voting with the angry old white bois?

I give them credit for more intelligence. And hope that I'm not wrong!

Gene

johnw
10-28-2014, 01:28 PM
From the link................

Since you're quoting Hartz, shouldn't you include this from the same link?


According to Louis Hartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Hartz), liberalism was the only significant political tradition in the United States.