[cmrdporcupine]

Again, it comes down to how you define "Right" doesn't it?

Clearly Christian theology and other strains of thought think otherwise... that there's an ethical/moral "rightness" which can be judged independent of what the powerful say.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for that position. I just am pointing out in part why the Democrats and liberals are so pathetically unable to confront this situation. They thought they were part of a gentleman's club, and they could all take turns ruling according to a set of rules.

[gosub100]

The liberal philosophy is just the mirror opposite, isn't it? "This poor, marginalized group is suffering, that's wrong! We need regulation to stop it. Oh look, we found another over here, this is injustice! Let's all take action to rid this wrong from the world".

[reverendsteveii]

IME the liberal philosophy is "today should be pretty much like yesterday was and tomorrow like today".

[gosub100]

That's quite... conservative.

[collingreen]

I think it's a mischaracterization of liberalism as a blind, bleeding heart that can't see past any local injustice.

Honest conservative and progressive policy can also both value and seek to expand justice.

[cmrdporcupine]

I mean, I'm personally a kind of Marxian. I won't defend liberalism, though I'd prefer not to live in an illberal society.

To me the present-day "left" liberal is not just profound hypocrisy but also a refusal to confront the reality of class conflict in capitalist society. The kind of liberal you're talking about will do "everything" to rectify injustice against every identifiable group except the largest group in society, the working class whose labour feeds the whole machine.

There was a slogan in the 20s and 30s when the socialist movement was confronted by (and lost to) the rise of the authoritarian right. "Socialism or barbarism" [and no, peanut gallery, the "left" in North America is not "socialism"]. Guess which part you're getting now.