Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
If they are donating to Conservatives then they are no more liberal than Joe Manchin is Democrat.
Calling themselves liberal doesn’t make it true. It’s the actions that decide what group they fall into.
Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business "opportunity" and order over everything else whenever they're in conflict.
That and it's common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they'll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn't apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn't something I'm familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The Hewlett Foundation did not reply, either, though the group has explained its donations online, stating that American Compass is “working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry,” eschewing “growth for its own sake” in favor of “widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions.”
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
In a statement for the Omidyar Network Foundation, a spokesperson told The Daily Beast, “We would encourage you to reach out to American Compass directly for comment on the pro-worker elements they were able to advocate for related to Project 2025.” The spokesperson did not reply to follow-ups seeking specific comment on American Compass’ affiliation with anti-democratic groups and ideologies that appear at odds with Omidyar’s historical support for inclusive global development.
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can't seem to glean, these organizations weren't able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn't make sense with their other donations.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn't the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That's not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what's most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It's far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
Maybe they're "cLaSSiCaL LiBeRaLs"
Neo-liberals are conservatives.
Not all conservatives are neoliberal.
Once again, George Carlin - The Big Club
(NSFW - language)
Carlin is the best that ever was, and possibly the best that ever will be.
I don't like selling the future short, but you may be right.
And we ain’t in it.
The personal foundations for the owners of the Omidyar Group and Hewlett Packard. (Commonly referred to as HP).
Yup totally not rich people bullshit.
Can we stop being surprised the wealthy back fascists?
If there's nobody fashionable doing anything right, then there's nobody to follow who's doing anything right. Therefore the whole world is gearing up for the apocalypse instead of bothering to take the simple steps that would prevent it. We get Elon Musk instead of another Tesla, who died penniless and robbed of his legacy. The apocalypse becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The world gets worse because no one is trying to make it better.
A world populated by nothing more than gorillas is a waste.
What do you mean no one is trying to make it better?
You're guilty of what you're accusing others of.
Elon Musk has virtually no influence on your life other than being a famous person.
Why don't you start following the Nobel Prize winners? Why don't you start following the people who are actively involved in politics or humanitarian projects?
You sit there and judge the world and the people in it becuse you are too lazy to actually move your head away from the trough of social media.
What makes something a "liberal org"?
Just because an organization donates to NPR doesn't mean it's a "liberal org" lol
Hot take:
This is the problem with the public not knowing what liberal means, or having some nebulous understanding that basically means "Democrat"
Came here to say this.
Yeah, these orgs fund both sides so they have a say no matter what side is in power.
The surprise.
I doubt I can burn them to the FUCKING ground on my own, but every day I start to wonder more and more if the cost of my personal freedom is a worthy price to pay to purge these aristocratic scum from our country...
The Hewlett Foundation lists the grants they've given to American Compass, they list all their grants.
https://hewlett.org/grants/?keyword=American%20compass&sort=relevance¤t_page=1
Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.
So, we know which groups can't be trusted with donations.
And if we're looking to sow discord among Republicans, we know which recipient to repeatedly out as filthy RINOs who are beholden to librul donors.
Not for nothing, but these "groups" are really just oligarchs with too much money. They fund things to buy influence. One of them is the guy who founded eBay. He doesn't give a shit who is in the White House as long as they take his phone calls.
Oligarchs with too much money
Modern day aristocracy.
the french had the right idea.
we need some fucking guillotines up in here.
Not surprised that rich people support other rich people