What is a liberal?

[cracked butt]

When I think of Liberal, a certain person comes to mind: George Carlin. Bitter, angry, pessimistic, anti-business, somewhat amusing but at the end of the day a sad sight to look at .

 

[No_Brakes23]

Liberalism is the absense of moral absolutes.

Would that make Fascism the pinnacle of piety? Would that make our founding fathers sinners of the lowest kind?

Or maybe liberalism is just an "ism" word coined to demonize anyone who loves freedom.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Libs & the Constitution

Liberals want to "change" the Constitution via judicial activism.

This is grounded in the belief that the Constitution is NOT a fixed-in-concrete framework, but rather open to, umm... "contemporary trends, needs, and values"... listening to leading judicial thought in Europe, etcetera... what's blowin' in the wind, dude? Kinda like... what's hot on MTV THIS week? What's "in?" What's "out?" "What's cool?"

Liberals use sneaky tactics to change/re-interpret the Constitution because they KNOW they cannot get the Congress, Senate, and 35 states to approve the REAL Constitutional amendments they actually desire. So, they seek to empower judges who will "legislate from the bench."

The Second Amendment (and Libs' incessant attempts to circumvent/gut it) are the perfect illustration of this intellectually-bankrupt syndrome.

So, while Dr. Howard Dean proclaims that "gun control" is no longer a plank in the NATIONAL Dem-Donkey platform, leading Lib-pols in blue cities and states across the country continue their War On Guns (see city of San Francisco, states of Kolleeforniya and Illinois, etc.). And we're supposed to actually believe that when those local Lib-pol gun-grabbers grow to national stature and eventually get elected to the Congress/Senate... that they'll suddenly become Protectors Of The Second Amendment?!?

Right.

(Maybe as long as the 2A is defined as, umm, "Sportsmens' Rights To Go Duck Hunting")

"That's a helluva price to pay just for bein' stylish."
-- Dirty Harry, "Magnum Force"

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Communist and/or transnational socialists (they are pretty much the same) have stolen the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to hide their agendas. "Look, we're like the Founding Fathers..."

SORRY libs. The Founding Fathers also set up a penalty for the crime Treason, something many "liberals" embrace on a daily basis. Oh, I know they skirt the issue, but they really enjoy anti-american activity that they wrap in the words "free speech". We haven't executed anyone for treason (espionage) since the Rosenbergs in 1956 AFAIK. High time we do again.

 

[benEzra]

Some conservatives use the term "liberal" to refer to almost anything they disagree with. Communitarianism, for example. Bill Clinton was a communitarian, not a classical liberal, which happens to be why he was SO anti-gun (read the communitarian platform sometime). Not all communitarians are on the left, either (Bill Bennett comes to mind).

Not all liberals are socialists, and not all socialists are liberals. (Remember the National Socialist German Worker's Party? Those weren't liberals...)

I've heard some people refer to libertarians as "liberals" because libertarians support scaling back the WOsD, support the First and Fourth Amendments (like *gasp* the ACLU), and oppose the Patriot Act.

In short, the word doesn't mean much as it is used today. I wouldn't even be sure how to define it, actually.

That's sort of like asking "what is a neocon?" Which is also a term that used to mean something, but is more of a catch-all label these days.

 

[RealGun]

This is grounded in the belief that the Constitution is NOT a fixed-in-concrete framework, but rather open to, umm... "contemporary trends, needs, and values"... listening to leading judicial thought in Europe, etcetera... what's blowin' in the wind, dude? Kinda like... what's hot on MTV THIS week? What's "in?" What's "out?" "What's cool?"

You said it well IMO but in simpler terms the Constitution gets in the way of liberal agendas. In today's political environment I believe we might say that there are those willing to be bound by a Constitution and those who are not.

 

[DunedinDragon]

If anyone had the chance to watch Discovery Channel's first episode of Red & Blue, you might get a pretty good picture of the differences between liberal and conservative thought. For those not aware of it, the program takes "typical" blue state and red state families and have them switch places for a period of time. In this case a family from a small farming town in Louisiana switched with a southern Calif family.

The interactions of these families within the commuity says it all.

At an informal get-together the the blue-state father asked the hostess if there was someplace he could go to have a smoke. She sent him off somewhere remote from the gathering. The whole time he was hounded by one of the other guests about how bad smoking was and how it should be outlawed. He just simply told the guy if he didn't like it to simply avoid it. When talking about guns the father said if you don't like them you shouldn't have one.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Calif. family made no secret of their distaste for certain things like smoking, church, and guns. The people in the small Louisiana farm community just generally politely nodded their heads and went about their business.

That's the difference.

However, it became pretty clear that the Calif. father was having a BLAST shooting the guns...boy did THAT irritate his wife.

 

[xd9fan]

hell what is a Conservative these days??

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

hell what is a Conservative these days??

A conservative is what he has always been. He is someone who wishes to restore and preserve political liberty (i.e., get the government generally out of his business, and return internal governmental power to the States and local governments where he can have some influence over it where it interacts with his personal life and liberties, if at all). He also believes that liberty does not exist in a vacuum. In order to be sustained, it must be sustained in the atmosphere that gave it life to begin with, i.e., it must be sustained in the contexts of the traditions and institutions that gave it birth. It must also be sustained within the rigid structure of the Constitution and the rule of law. Edmund Burke was a conservative.

A libertarian similarly wishes to restore and preserve political liberty, but he doesn't understand that it was given birth to by a certain culture amid certain traditions and certain institutions. Liberty can exist in a cultural vacuum, says the libertarian. It is self-perpetuating, once correctly instituted, which, according to them, it has yet to be. I believe that Thomas Paine was a fairly pure libertarian, though they were called just plain liberals back then.

Now, the leftists have no love for liberty. They are statists, but are known to call themselves liberals so as to throw you off their trail. These are the enemies of liberty. They believe in collectivism. They believe that the individual is far less important than the state, and ought to be made to serve the needs of the state, which they worship almost like a god. Neither tradition nor liberty has any value to them. Joe Stalin was a leftist, as were Adolph Hitler and Mussolini, not to mention just about every elected Democrat, and more than a few Repubicans, in the United States.

 

[spacemanspiff]

nobrakes23 said:

That is pretty much the exact opposite of liberty. I suppose you think that the people shooting at our soldiers in Iraq are "Freedom Fighters" too. I mean, that is what they call themselves, so Freedom Fighters must be people who hack off people's heads on TV, right? That is the logic you are using.

could you make some sense of that? explain yourself further so i can give a proper response?

 

[shotgunner]

Actually our Founding Forefathers were Liberals too.
People always confuse the term Liberal and Leftist, often putting them together in the same group.
I think the true Liberals of yesterday are far far gone, and the term means something totally different in today's world.

A better term would be Leftist, or Bleeding Heart Leftist, usually somebody's stance on morality defines whether they are on the left or right.
-Leftists-
Support gun control
Support abortion rights
Support the removal of God from public
Think a government with more federal control is better as opposed to local laws
They think that because Richard Belzer or Hillary Clinton say it's okay then it must be.

Whatever you do my friend, don't vote Hillary Clinton into office, otherwise it probably will be civillians vs. the government because she'll try to force her Leftist will upon the people.

-"The siezure of arms will ensure that a democracy becomes a dictatorship." ~Me
-"Tune in next week for... America's Next Top Illogical!" ~Me

 

[BryanP]

As near as I can tell a liberal/Democrat is someone who wants the government out of your bedroom and in your office. Conversely, a conservative/republican is someone who wants the government out of your office and in your bedroom.

 

[RealGun]

-Leftists-
Support gun control
Support abortion rights
Support the removal of God from public
Think a government with more federal control is better as opposed to local laws
They think that because Richard Belzer or Hillary Clinton say it's okay then it must be.

I don't see this as correct. You are defining the polarity between Democrats and Republicans more than left vs right. People have picked champions pro or con on the abortion and church state separation questions, but those are not exclusive of either the left or right...not inherent to one or the other from a political philosophy perspective. Regardless, it would not be accurate to say, for example, that Republicans were pro-life by definition. In fact, I could argue that being pro choice and against intrusion in government and public proceedings by a religion was quite conservative.

 

[xd9fan]

Hawkeye thats a nice little summery...you should post it at the GOP headquarters.......

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

LibThink

Beyond their propensity for bending the Constitution to achieve judicially (via "liberals" planted in the courts, etc.) what they cannot achieve legislatively, there are two additional traits that define modern Liberals:

1. CULTURAL ELITISM:
"Liberals" believe their educational credentials render their opinions/insights vastly superior to the unwashed hordes'. They think they Know What's Best for society. Deep in their hearts, they wish their votes "counted more" than the average Joe's. So, because they "know" what we really need for true "progress" and "social justice" they push agendae For The Children, i.e., turning the country into one big Day-Care Center... agendae which also just so happen to trample upon individual rights and the Constitution.

Book-signings, wine-tastings, film festivals, teach-ins, and various trendy feel-good political "demonstrations" are sure-fire places to find modern Liberals. Gun shows are not. It's pure cultural affinity.

2. PACIFISM:
"Liberals" naively believe that their cultural/intellectual "superiority" enables them -- and governments lead by them -- to achieve social and international harmony without resorting to overt conflict or war ("violence"). Such conflict is "lowering yourself to their level" and thus reprehensible, because "violence never achieved anything" (notwithstanding the lessons of history). The U.N. defines LibThink run amok. In this mindset, non-violent "conflict resolution," appeasement, and even surrender are vastly preferable to ever Taking-A-Stand... and actually (mercy!) fighting... because "Oohh, somebody might get hurt."

Thus, Self Defense (at the point of attack) is reprehensible "John Wayne vigilantilism," or "taking the law into your own hands." If you point out to a Lib that "A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone" the Lib will go into orbit, ranting about The Common Good, blah blah, etc..

In modern LibThink...(a) "Troops" are invented primarily for "bringing home", and (b) the Second Amendment is (regrettably) solely about "sportsmens' rights" (until they can finally demonize such Neanderthal/blood-thirsty behavior out of existence). Besides, if ya Bring The Troops Home, you can (a) turn the Troops into thumb-sucking, vegetarian Bunny-Huggers, and (b) have more money for social programs that buy votes.

While some members of the Republican Party (RINOs) tend to align their votes with LibThink so they can serve disengaged or squeamish (pacifist/cultural elitist) voter constituencies -- and keep their jobs -- modern LibThink is deeply embedded in the Democrat Party.

Pacifism and Cultural Elitism: it's always what's-for-dinner at LibThink Central.

 

[No_Brakes23]

could you make some sense of that? explain yourself further so i can give a proper response?

You are clearly describing socialists and leftist, NOT liberals. You call them "liberals" because they call themselves that.

Similarly, the insurgents in Iraq don't call themselves terrorists, they call themselves "freedom fighters". You and I both know they are not fighting for freedom, but that is what they call themselves. When someone wants to tell me I can't drive an SUV, own a certain gun, or play a certain video game, they are the opposite of liberal. Leftists, Socialists and Democrats frequently clamor about what we need to ban or outlaw, and that is NOT liberal. Yet because they call themselves liberal, you go right along with it. It would be the same as using the word Freedom Fighter as a synonym for anyone who opposes us, just because some who oppose us would incorrectly describe themselves as such.

As someone who served for 8 years sword to defend the Constitution, I take personal offense when folks use the word Liberal as an epithet. People who don't believe in Liberty should move to another country.

Now if you want to talk about how leftists and socialists are ruining the country, I am right there with ya.

 

[cbsbyte]

I agree we should start calling Modern liberals, their true name... leftist. For some reason, in this country we call leftist as liberals. They have nothing in common with traditional Liberals, who believe in democracy and Liberty. Traditional Liberals, are the people we read about in the news, who are trying to reform their countries, former communist countries or autocratic states, into democratic states that gurantee personal freedoms. Leftist are the people who reform Autocratic states into Communist or Leftist socialist states. A good example is Venuzeula, where leftist have taken control of the Government, and are restricting democracy and personal freedom in the country. But the US media calls them liberals, wether they don't know what the word means, or they are trying to confuse the liberal and leftist meanings.
In this country political words have multiable meaning depending on the useage and time period. Traditionally a Republican opposes monarchies, and believes in a Free Republic( French Revolution). A Republic is not a pure Democratic state where everyone has equal votes. Today, a Republican is a Conservative. This all is very confusing.

On a side note, Democrats use to be traditional Liberals. In the 1950s leftist started to infultrate the Democrat party, by the 1970s they had moved the base of the party to the far left. In the 80s, Under Regan many Liberal Democrats shifted parties to become Republicans.

 

[wheelgunner.41]

In response to Nobrakes 23
Thomas Jefferson a liberal, thats a first. Thomas Jefferson was a federalist.
Right and left are recent political venue. Liberalism in todays world is socialism. In socialism goverment is god.






















r

 

[cbsbyte]

In response to Nobrakes 23
Thomas Jefferson a liberal, thats a first. Thomas Jefferson was a federalist.
Right and left are recent political venue. Liberalism in todays world is socialism. In socialism goverment is god.

A Federalist is someone who supported a strong Federal Government, am example is Alexander Hamilton. A Liberal believes in individial Liberty protected by laws. Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was a Republican and a Liberal.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was a Republican

Actually, Jefferson was a 'Democratic-Republican'; the party that is the root of the Democrat Party. It was the 'average man' , becoming resentful of the rich and well born, who gave rise to the Democrat-Republican party by way of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists were almost all propertied northern merchants. George Washington and John Adams were Federalists, which later became the Republican Party.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Liberals want to "change" the Constitution via judicial activism.

What is judicial activism? Honestly, it is a buzz word that means, the SCotUS ruled against the way I think they should.

Liberals use sneaky tactics to change/re-interpret the Constitution because they KNOW they cannot get the Congress, Senate, and 35 states to approve the REAL Constitutional amendments they actually desire. So, they seek to empower judges who will "legislate from the bench."

Oh, you mean the like the FCC, which was put into place by a conservative god. Not to mention moral standards implemented by law and attempts at making things like flag burning illegal?

The Second Amendment (and Libs' incessant attempts to circumvent/gut it) are the perfect illustration of this intellectually-bankrupt syndrome.

Some of the most horrendous gutting of the 2nd was done under conservative admins. Take Bush Sr. for example.

So, while Dr. Howard Dean proclaims that "gun control" is no longer a plank in the NATIONAL Dem-Donkey platform, leading Lib-pols in blue cities and states across the country continue their War On Guns (see city of San Francisco, states of Kolleeforniya and Illinois, etc.). And we're supposed to actually believe that when those local Lib-pol gun-grabbers grow to national stature and eventually get elected to the Congress/Senate... that they'll suddenly become Protectors Of The Second Amendment?!?

Right.

Yeah, in the same way conservatives believe in smaller government, increased rights, and less spending

 

[MrTuffPaws]

As near as I can tell a liberal/Democrat is someone who wants the government out of your bedroom and in your office. Conversely, a conservative/republican is someone who wants the government out of your office and in your bedroom.

Funny but too true for comfort

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Actually, Jefferson was a 'Democratic-Republican'; the party that is the root of the Democrat Party. It was the 'average man' , becoming resentful of the rich and well born, who gave rise to the Democrat-Republican party by way of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists were almost all propertied northern merchants. George Washington and John Adams were Federalists, which later became the Republican Party.

He didn't mean to suggest that Jefferson was a member of the Republican Party. He meant that Jefferson was a "small r" republican, i.e., in the sense that Brutus was a republican, i.e., someone who advocates a republican form of government.

 

[PCGS65]

Webster(the dictionary)has many definitons. Here's a couple of my favorites.
1.Lacking moral restraint
2.One who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways.

 

[tube_ee]

Expecting an answer to the question "what is a liberal" on this board would be like asking me what a conservative is. I could only answer out of my own prejudices, as I've never been one.

Here's what I, and many of the other liberals I communicate with, believe in:

1. Regulated capitalism. Unrestricted anything tends to be bad, as it magnifies the "dark side" along with the good. Without effective regulation, capitalism degenerates into the kind of ruthlessness we saw in the Industrial Revolution. I, for one, have no desire to live in the 1880s. Left to it's own devices, capitalism tends towards oligarchy and oppression. This was the one thing Marx got right. (His solutions, on the other hand, are simply nonsense.) A regulated marketplace, which serves to limit the power of any one participant, is, we think, the best way to ensure the benefits of capitalism while avoiding it's worst potential abuses.

2. Labor unions. It is only through collective action, and negotiating as a group, that workers can begin to equalize the power relationship between themselves and their employers. It is in the employer's interest to extract the maximum work for the minimum cost. It is in the employee's interest to get the maximum benefit for the work that they do. In the inevitable conflict, liberals tend to take the side of the employee.

3. Separation of Chuch and State. I want my government to be completely silent when it comes to religion. Religion is a private matter, one which the state should stay 100% out of. Theocracies are inevitably oppressive. Religion is a force of great power. So is the state. Keep them apart.

4. Universal health care. For most liberals, this is a moral issue. Poverty shouldn't be a death sentence. Human life and health are not "products", and I don't want the market deciding who lives and who dies. It's possible to argue this one on the basis of cost, as well, but for most, it's ethical, not financial.

5. Limitations on the power of money. Especially unearned money. This is where the idea of inheritance taxes comes in. Being born rich confers enormous advantages, which the individual so blessed has done nothing to gain for him/her self. This is also where ideas like campaign finance reform come from. From the liberal perspective, one's net worth shouldn't confer any greater political power than any other citizen posseses. Ideally, it shouldn't give you any advantage other than the ability to buy more stuff, but that's kinda unrealistic.

6. Equality. Essentially, the idea that, from the state's perspective, all citizens are the same. This is not "Robin Hood." It is, again, a desire to minimize power differentials whenever possible.

7. Privacy. The decisions I make, so long as they impinge on no one else's liberties, are no business of the state. What I put in my body, who I have sex with, who I live with, what I do to myself is nobody's business but my own.

8. A general distrust of absolutes. There are exceptions to this, of course, but most liberals I know get pertty suspicious of anyone claiming to have "the one true way."

9. Distrust of power, and a reluctance to use it, or see it used in our name.

10. No short description here, but most liberals I know don't subscribe to the "Shining City on the Hill" idea. Which isn't to say that we're anti-American. For the most part, we'd just rather that America minded it's own darned business. There's noting special about us, as a people. We have inherited a (mostly) great society, but there's no reason for that other than the accidents of history, and we have no right or obligation to make anyone else be like us. If they want to, fine, but I really don't care.

11. Dissent. Disagreeing with one's government is not only the right of every American, it's a duty. Those in power should not be trusted, simply because they have power. They work for us, and we need to monitor their use of the power we give them closely, or they will misuse it. The freedom to disagree is the bedrock of liberty. Without it, nothing else matters. That's why they put it first in the Bill of Rights.

And finally, most of us are patrioits. You can, of course, believe that liberal=traitor all you want, but you'd better not even think it real loud around me. Veterans tend to take that rather poorly.

You'll notice that there's nothing in here about gun control. That's because most liberals I know don't believe in it much. Now, certain politicians do, but I think that has much more to do with being "tough on crime", whatever that means, than liberalism, per se. For what it's worth, gun control hasn't been on the Democratic Party platform for a long time now, and the Party's chairman got a 100% rating from the NRA when he was a Governor.

Hope that helped.

--Shannon