5 ms·

Probably worth mentioning that Manchin is one of the most conservative Democratic senators before people start flaming him as a liberal bent on destroying freed

by Cless 13y ago

Probably worth mentioning that Manchin is one of the most conservative Democratic senators before people start flaming him as a liberal bent on destroying freedom.

crusso 13y ago
The labels aren't nearly as important as understanding that he is part of a power structure that is bent on preventing any sort of challenge to the government's monopoly on currency regulation.
NateDad 13y ago
I was pretty sure that's what the W.V. after his name meant.
javert 13y ago
So he's conservative AND a Democrat? Wow, I guess he combines the worst of both sides.
declan 13y ago
Note that Chuck Schumer, who National Journal says* was the most liberal senator in 2013 (well, it was a three-way tie) also has signed letters with Manchin to DOJ complaining that Bitcoin is "untraceable" and demanding a crackdown on Silk Road. Can the most liberal senator be flamed as one? Or is that label never to be used in polite discourse? :) * http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/the-15-most-liberal-senators-20140206 http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/the-15-most-li...
- mayneack 13y ago
  "Most liberal" is hard to define. I prefer DW-Nominate score which ranks Schumer as the 20th most liberal and Manchin as the 53rd. http://voteview.org/dwnominate.asp http://voteview.org/dwnominate.asp http://voteview.org/SENATE_SORT112.HTM http://voteview.org/SENATE_SORT112.HTM
Udo 13y ago
Asking as a non-American, why would someone characterized as "liberal" do this? It seems to me like this is a very thoroughly conservative move and well in line with conservative and reactionary thinking. Or have the definitions of the words liberal and conservative been swapped recently? A lot of the comments in this thread indicate that this may indeed be the case.
- jerf 13y ago
  Indeed, US "liberal" and "conservative" have little to do with their other meanings. If you trace the history back on the terms you can find where they diverged, and there's some traces of connection, but for the most part you're better off taking them as "just variables" that happen to have leading names. I've also observed that the connection to their usage in other countries/polities are unreliable guides as well.
  - Udo 13y ago
    But the basis is still in there somewhere, right? I mean, here in the EU being conservative means wanting to literally conserve established power structures, with a big emphasis on religious and social rigidity or even regression. It means having the desire to pass laws that benefit powerful centralized interests and marginalize minorities such as poor people or those deemed ethnically inferior. This is absolutely the direction where draconian and arcane laws come from. Along those lines, I always took "liberal" to mean literally being of a laissez-faire attitude, being secular or at least open to science and advancement, big on personal freedoms and individuality but also often paired with an egalitarian desire for social justice. I can't shake off the feeling that these words have been redefined in recent discourse in an attempt to prevent people from having a meaningful discussion about issues.
    - jerf 13y ago
      "But the basis is still in there somewhere, right?" Only historically. US Liberalism, being the dominant political ideology in the US (despite its occasional protests to the contrary) is actually often quite conservative today, trying to preserve its changes from being undone (be that by literally being rolled back, or by being modified into something a liberal doesn't want). However noble or terrible that desire may be, it slots into the "conservative" side of the original meanings. US Conservatism is often about tearing those down and replacing it with something else, and while some of that may be modeled with a "return" to an older status quo (be it fictional or based in reality), a lot of it isn't; what's the historically "conservative" answer about internet issues, for instance? Both ideologies are rather strong on the control and quick to reach for the stick of regulation when in power, albeit for different things, but at the moment it's Liberalism that I'd associate with a huge, huge belief in regulations, and while conservatism is not "laissez-faire", the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the conservative side when forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism in the US at least tolerates the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism at this point openly mocks it.

by Cless 13y ago

Probably worth mentioning that Manchin is one of the most conservative Democratic senators before people start flaming him as a liberal bent on destroying freedom.

crusso 13y ago

The labels aren't nearly as important as understanding that he is part of a power structure that is bent on preventing any sort of challenge to the government's monopoly on currency regulation.

NateDad 13y ago

I was pretty sure that's what the W.V. after his name meant.

javert 13y ago

So he's conservative AND a Democrat? Wow, I guess he combines the worst of both sides.

declan 13y ago

Note that Chuck Schumer, who National Journal says* was the most liberal senator in 2013 (well, it was a three-way tie) also has signed letters with Manchin to DOJ complaining that Bitcoin is "untraceable" and demanding a crackdown on Silk Road. Can the most liberal senator be flamed as one? Or is that label never to be used in polite discourse? :) * http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/the-15-most-liberal-senators-20140206 http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/the-15-most-li...

mayneack 13y ago
"Most liberal" is hard to define. I prefer DW-Nominate score which ranks Schumer as the 20th most liberal and Manchin as the 53rd. http://voteview.org/dwnominate.asp http://voteview.org/dwnominate.asp http://voteview.org/SENATE_SORT112.HTM http://voteview.org/SENATE_SORT112.HTM

Udo 13y ago

Asking as a non-American, why would someone characterized as "liberal" do this? It seems to me like this is a very thoroughly conservative move and well in line with conservative and reactionary thinking. Or have the definitions of the words liberal and conservative been swapped recently? A lot of the comments in this thread indicate that this may indeed be the case.

jerf 13y ago
Indeed, US "liberal" and "conservative" have little to do with their other meanings. If you trace the history back on the terms you can find where they diverged, and there's some traces of connection, but for the most part you're better off taking them as "just variables" that happen to have leading names. I've also observed that the connection to their usage in other countries/polities are unreliable guides as well.
- Udo 13y ago
  But the basis is still in there somewhere, right? I mean, here in the EU being conservative means wanting to literally conserve established power structures, with a big emphasis on religious and social rigidity or even regression. It means having the desire to pass laws that benefit powerful centralized interests and marginalize minorities such as poor people or those deemed ethnically inferior. This is absolutely the direction where draconian and arcane laws come from. Along those lines, I always took "liberal" to mean literally being of a laissez-faire attitude, being secular or at least open to science and advancement, big on personal freedoms and individuality but also often paired with an egalitarian desire for social justice. I can't shake off the feeling that these words have been redefined in recent discourse in an attempt to prevent people from having a meaningful discussion about issues.
  - jerf 13y ago
    "But the basis is still in there somewhere, right?" Only historically. US Liberalism, being the dominant political ideology in the US (despite its occasional protests to the contrary) is actually often quite conservative today, trying to preserve its changes from being undone (be that by literally being rolled back, or by being modified into something a liberal doesn't want). However noble or terrible that desire may be, it slots into the "conservative" side of the original meanings. US Conservatism is often about tearing those down and replacing it with something else, and while some of that may be modeled with a "return" to an older status quo (be it fictional or based in reality), a lot of it isn't; what's the historically "conservative" answer about internet issues, for instance? Both ideologies are rather strong on the control and quick to reach for the stick of regulation when in power, albeit for different things, but at the moment it's Liberalism that I'd associate with a huge, huge belief in regulations, and while conservatism is not "laissez-faire", the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the conservative side when forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism in the US at least tolerates the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism at this point openly mocks it.