I'm sorry, Frosty, but it seems you have nearly everything completely bass ackwards, which, I should add, is what 99% of the l*****ts do. The left is, and always has been, for e******y of outcome, not for e******y of opportunity. The euphemism you always hear from them is to "level the playing field." That is BS. They want to knock down those who have been successful. You know, place a few obstacles in their paths so they can't do quite as well, in hopes that they won't gobble up too much of the good things which are seen to be available in a limited amount. They don't believe in growth of the economy by new markets such as cell phones, wide screen TV, better cars, or anything that expands the economy. The notion that you have to rob the wealthy so they won't take too much is a fallacy that the left cannot seem to get used to. It's called class envy or greed. If you examine the history of those countries you mentioned you'll find that marxism is the cause of their downfall, just the opposite of what you say.

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman
Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals, and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.
In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

“Liberalism” has taken on a very different meaning in the twentieth century and particularly in the United States. This difference is least in the concrete political forms favored: both the nineteenth-century liberal and the twentieth-century liberal favor or profess to favor parliamentary forms, nearly universal adult franchise, and the protection of civil rights. But even in politics there are some not unimportant differences: in any issue involving a choice between centralization or decentralization of political responsibility, the nineteenth-century liberal will resolve any doubt in favor of strengthening the importance of local governments at the expense of the central government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the defenses against arbitrary government and to protect individual freedom as much as possible; the twentieth-century liberal will resolve the same doubt in favor of increasing the power of the central government at the expense of local government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the power of the government to do “good for” the people...


I am an old style Liberal

let's just say if anyone broke down those topics .. absolutely none of his trumplicans would believe or try to understand the mechanics[ aka t***hs]or any of what's really happening, like what has gone down with CPAC( now referred to as the heart of fasicism) and mittens for starters. 👀
Hitler had brown shirts,he has rethuginics and GOP lackies.

this is NOT,
I repeat Not a discussion forum as hard as it tries( it just cuts the muster of a bulletin board).... too bad,if it were it might prove satisfactory,instead of lethal,which it is why it's in others rules of how and what not to post, 😱
it gets visitors to that end{ I come to confirm sometimes what's seen/ posted} have a good day. 😊

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Let em keep it up.~ They are doing an excellent job getting the Republicans out v****g~~ Did you see this??

Trump, on the other hand, piled up an impressive win on the Republican side, crushing former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld by an 86-to-9 margin. According to Kyle Kondik of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, that is a larger share of the v**e than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama received when they ran for ree******n and is only slightly less than Ronald Reagan got in 1984. There is no serious GOP opposition to Trump, and presidents with no internal dissent historically tend to win ree******n. <snip>

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2f2020%2f02%2f12%2freal-winner-new-hampshire-donald-trump%2f%3foutputType%3damp