In the 21st Century USA, we view the term "Liberal" and "Progressive" as interchangeable, but there are NOT. Herbert Hoover asked to Debate FDR on the 1932 election on who was the greater liberal, FDR decline on the grounds he would have lost the debate.
Liberals OPPOSED anything the restricted the ability of people to do what they wanted. Thus they opposed Unions, as a restraint on trade. Social Security, for it was the GOVERNMENT providing aid not individuals helping themselves, aid to education as the Government not the individual deciding what to learn.
Progressive of the late 1800s early 1900s, supported Unions, for it increased wages of the lower classes, supported Social Security, for it permitted the elderly to live comfortably in their old age, not work till they drop, and Public Education for it provided a better quality of education for more people then the previous private schools parents had to paid for their children to go to.
The Kock Brothers are of that late 1800s, early 1900 American Liberal movement (A movement that still exists in Europe, Japan and the rest of the world, UNDER the name of being "Liberal" thus the Japanese Liberal Party is the Party of the Japanese Right.
These Social Liberals supported Equal Rights for African Americans, but oppose the demand of African Americans to address the long term effect of discrimination. They supported equal rights for Women, but opposed setting aside certain number of position for women to offset historical discrimination against women. They ever support Gay Rights and Gay marriage for it does NOT affect their bottom line.
The problem is these "Social Liberals" will oppose anything that does effect their bottom line, thus they hate unions, demands of African Americans and the Poor for equal treatment by the Police and the Courts, and demands that they treat women and other groups they personally dislike as equals. Such "Demands" are demands of being a member of a Society, and Social Liberals value their image as being "Individuals" over being a member of a Society.
They want Society to protect them and their wealth, but they do NOT really want to be part of that society if it costs them anything. These they support the tea party.
One last comment. Prior to the 2000 election, the GOP never controlled, the House of Representatives, the Presidency ANd the Senate from 1930 till 2000. The GOP would occasionally win the Senate between 1930 and 2000, but from 1930 till 1994, they only held the house from 1946 to 1948, when a Democrat, Harry S Truman was President. The GOP won the House again in 1994, but a Democrat Bill Clinton was President.
Thus 2000 was the first time since 1930 the GOP controlled the House, the Senate AND the Presidency all at the same time (Children of the the Great Depression and WWII, voted Democratic overwhelmingly, thus the "Greatest Generation" became the "Greatest Generation" only after they no longer could vote for most had died of old age, thus dead the GOP could sing their praises, but when alive the GOP opposed everything most people of that generation supported, at least on the Domestic Front).
Thus in 2000 was the first time the Democratic Party could NOT be blamed for blocking the GOP social agenda. This where was the additional restrictions on Abortions? where was the support for more religion in schools? The answer was no where, the whole Social Agenda, who the Religious Right wanted was ignored for attacks on Social Security and other Economic attacks on the working and middle class. The Moral Majority did NOT vote GOP for cuts in Social Security and taxes for the rich, restrictions on abortion and restrictions on sex was want they wanted and why they voted GOP. Thus in 2004, many of the religious right stayed home. In rural American George W. Bush received less votes then he had in 2000, why? The Religious Rights stayed home for they saw no difference between Bush and Kerry on what they valued the most (Bush won the election by increasing his votes in Urban Areas, which has lead to accusation that he cheated, but no direct evidence of such fraud).
Thus the Moral Majority was dead by 2004, the GOP had killed it by refusing to address what the people who made up the Moral Majority wanted. The Tea Party is the Kock's response to the death of the Moral Majority, it is an attempt to get the most radical of the Moral Majority into a group that only exists to support the Koch's positions. The Moral Majority always had a problem, it was the same problem George Wallace faced in 1964 when he was approached about having his Dixiecrats support the GOP in that election. Wallace was agreeable at first, till the GOP demanded that he give up support for Social Security, which Wallace absolutely refused for Wallace and most of his Dixiecrats fully supported Social Security. The Moral Majority had the same problem, they opposed abortion and willing to ally with someone to oppose abortion but most people in the Moral Majority also supported Social Security. Thus an attack on Social Security WITHOUT any REAL attack on abortion (and the rest of their Social Agenda) meant the members of the Moral Majority saw themselves giving up what they wanted for nothing. That was unacceptable to them, but voting for an pro abortion candidate was also unacceptable so they did not vote in 2004 and the Moral Majority promptly died.
The Tea Party was Koch's attempt to rebuild the Moral Majority without those people who demanded that they Social Agenda be addressed. Unlike the Moral Majority which had a positive program (positive in the sense they knew what they wanted to do as oppose to a negative program which is to oppose something without promoting something), the Tea Party is strictly negative. i.e. they oppose what Obama is doing, but really do NOT have a substitute agenda. The Moral Majority did have a substitute, we on DU may have opposes that program, but the Moral Majority had a program, unlike the Tea Party which is just Anti-Obama and Anti-Democratic.
As far as the Koch brothers are concern they like the Tea Party lack of an program, for the lack of a program means the Koch Brothers can provide one when the time is right for them. When you have two positions, one that is negative, the other that is positive, the positive tends to win out for it means doing something as oppose to just saying no. No, only wins when it is part of a alternative plan and people support that alternative plan.
In the case of the Koch brothers, they know this and thus using the Tea Party as a negative program, but one without a plan. The reason the Koch brother supports the Tea Party is they know they plan has no actual support among the people of the US, cut taxes and cut Government to the bone including eliminating Social Security. The Koch brother know most of the members of the Tea Party support Social Security (just like most members of the Moral Majority support Social Security), thus to keep the Tea Party alive Social Security is NOT mentioned.
At the same time, like in 2000 to 2004, Social Security elimination is on the Koch brothers agenda. In a time of crisis when the time is ripe and a POSITIVE program is needed, the Koch Brothers and their allies will step in and get what they want, more tax cuts on the 1% and elimination of Social Security. If Congress is still to afraid to touch Social Security, they have an alternative plan, preserve Social Security for people over age 50 or maybe 40, but put everyone else on some sort of do it yourself Social Security (i.e. you direct where your Social Security will be invested in, every through most financial advisors tell people to invest what they absolutely need to survive in US Treasury Bonds for they was the SAFEST in the world for the US government can always raise taxes to pay those bonds, and is it what the Social Security surplus had been put into and at the lowest overhead costs of any financial group).
Thus the Koch brothers are Social Liberals and always have been. Historically Social Liberalism has always been tied in with Liberal economics (Now called Neo-Liberal economics). The Koch brothers are of this branch of liberalism.
Since the 1930s American Liberalism has adopted Economic Progressivism to replace liberal economics AND the Conservative Movement in the US has fully embraced Liberal Economics, thus the confusion of the use of these terms. You can NOT have true freedom without freedom of want and the liberal economics is based on the "Freedom of Want". As one person from Eastern Europe said, he had the greatest amount of freedom under Communism for he had the Freedom of NOT having to worry about where he was going to live or where hiss next meal was coming from, that freedom was lost when Communism was overthrown.
Thus the Left in the US has always concentrated on FDR's Four Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from want and Freedom from Fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
No one is arguing about the first two today (except in odd cases here and there), the two freedoms almost NEVER mentioned today are the last two, for they are the most important of the four. Freedom of want and Freedom from fear, means you can say what you want without staving or being beaten up for saying what you want to say AND worshipping (or NO worshipping) how you want to. The first two can NOT really exists in any place where the latter two does NOT exist, yet Freedom from Want is the most anti-capitalistic position one can take. Freedom from Fear permits people to speak, without freedom from fear, freedom of speech and worship are meaningless (i.e. you have the right to remain silent as long as you can withstand the pain).
The Koch brothers want to return to a time period where Freedom from Want did NOT exist AND Freedom from Fear also did not exist. They want to undo everything FDR and LBJ did as to economic policy of the US. Thus the Koch Brothers are liberals going after their arch enemies, the Progressives, who want to improve the US even if that means more government. Government means society and people are social animals thus we always need some form of "Government". That "Government" may be a tribal band of a centralized state, but it most take care of everyone in that society. This is what the Koch Brothers oppose, for they want to be parasites on Society not a member of it. They want to suck all they can from Society without giving anything back to it. You can call them anti-human, but you can say the same for most of the 1%.
Social Liberals value the individual over the group, but people are Social Animals and we work better and do better if we act as members of that group/society. I like the right of the Individual as much as the next person, but I also value being a member of society and accept that I must "Pay" for that privilege, part of that payment is to give up some individual rights. The Koch brother do NOT want to give up anything, especially their money and thus are the most anti-Social people in the US today (as are most of the 1%). We have to accept that they are the enemy and that liberalism is also an enemy. Liberalism, especially Social Liberalism is a tool of the 1% to attack the rest of us and we have to watch them when they do it.
This happens when Liberalism and the economic benefit of the lower 90% come into conflict, we have accept that such liberalism is misplaced and oppose it.
Side note: The "Conservative" movement in the US is NOT Conservative at the present time. Traditional "Conservatism" is to oppose change for change sake, but support change when it is needed. In many ways Obama is a classic conservative, he will only adopt change once it becomes clear it is needed, but oppose change till then.
The right wing in the US today is NOT Conservative. It has an agenda, change that benefit the 1%. That is NOT conservative, that is right wing liberalism. Most people who call themselves "Conservatives" are of this branch of Liberalism (But they deny being liberals). They want change for change sake, change that benefit the 1%.
Traditional Conservatives are few today, and mostly support the Democratic Party. They oppose gay marriage for they do not see the need for that change, but they support gay rights for it is something whose time has come. Many Conservatives are still in the GOP, but being isolated by the radicals who want, what the Conservatives see as unneeded changes. The heart of the GOP has NEVER been Conservative (they call themself Conservatives but they are not) but are right wing economic and social liberals of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Thus we are in a fight between Liberalism and Progressivism. Do we make the Government smaller so individuals have more freedom of action, or do we increase government to maximize the freedom from want and fear? That in a nutshell is the fight we are in, the true conservatives have been isolated and becoming irrelevant in this fight. They can swing the balance, and I suspect they are swinging it to the left wing, for the left is trying to protect society something true conservatives value. Thus do we go with the liberalism of 1% (the GOP's position) or go for Progressives to make a better life for the 99%? (Hopefully DU's position and the position of the left wing of the Democratic Party). Let fight for the Four Freedoms mentioned by FDR, especially the last two, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
= new reply since forum marked as read
