20 Jun 2021 6:59 pm
I agree with you overall but I think there is a bit of nuance.Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 6:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Well that’s why I said Cannon’s argument is invalid...majority of liberals AFAIK do not oppose the “liberal establishment” (and make no mistake - the USA is liberal ideologically) and I don’t see why they should. Sure they might bitch about how we don’t have UHC under Biden but they, in the end, support Democrat Party sycophants/servants.
They support “the elites.”
Then Cannon might come back and say, “Well then they’re not really liberals,” but that reeks of NTS fallacy. Why should Cannon be the final arbiter of who is a “liberal” and who isn’t a liberal? Solon or Vegas giants can make the same argument about why Cannon isn’t the liberal because he made racist jokes and “liberals can’t be racists” or some BS.
He may find 2021 American liberals’ viewpoints repugnant, but saying “they’re not really liberals” is hefty baggage and requires major substantiation.
I mean it’s the same **** libertarians pull - if you criticize their arguments then they fall back on, “oh well [X] isn’t a free market system so you can’t use that against me.”
Yes of course the USA is 'liberal'. Indeed both parties are liberal...republicans more than democrats (always have been)
And the majority of citizens in the usa, brainwashed in our schools, take liberal priors as axiomatic truth. They lack the vocabulary to even challenge liberalism as a political philosophy.
But at the same time...wheneve somebody like Huey long comes along, they become extremely popular. The people can easily recognize that this is what they actually want. And as long as you do not inform people that Huey long was much more of a fascist than a liberal, nobody will even notice the internal contradictions here. Indeed according to polls, the majority of us voters want a more socialist economy mixed with traditional social values. That sounds a lot like fascism. They just don't know it.
So is this really a soctsman fallacy? I mean...can you really be a liberal if you do not know what liberalism is? I would argue no.
You would at least have to have heard of Jesus to call yourself a christian. Ideologies have to actually mean something coherent and definable...they are not defined by whatever mass of people decide to adopt the label.
So yeah...if a person calls themselves liberal but does not agree that 'the best government is one that governs the least'...then I would look at that with the same respect as a black person calling themselves Scottish, or a person who worships Hecate calling themselves christian.