What is a liberal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is all so confusing :confused: . I'm a classical liberal at heart, but between the two sides, feel present day conservatives best represent classical liberal ideals more than liberals. Isn't classical liberalism about the individual being able to make rational choices for themselves and while distrusting gov't accepting it as a necessary evil that should be limited in power? I see very little in today's liberals/leftists that would indicate these values? Not that the conservatives are that great either just seem a little better. I'm also a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
 
chickenfried said:
This is all so confusing :confused:

Here...lemme help you out a bit chickenfried:

Some folks here think that the word "Liberal" is an dirty word, and people associated with that word are to be reviled, demonized and hated. They have taken a word and made it horrible, in their minds.

Utilizing a perverted version of Orwellian wordsmithing, they will call you names, and insult members of your family and your friends by changing a word from it's original meaning into something that they can put a handle on.

Somehow this passes on the High Road, and no one is ever called on it, but feel free to join the echo chamber. A bit loud, but presumedly you already have ear protection. :rolleyes:

Me, I am a little worried about friendly fire, so i am gonna sit this one out--I like my hearing, and I would prefer to save some ammo for something that actually matters...like getting fools like Fienstein and Burdick (local anti) out of office. :cuss:

I'm also a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

:what: Er...wrong forum.
 
Citizen "A" wants more out of life. A better standard of living.

A Liberal will advise Citizen "A" to whine more whereas a Conservative type will advise Citizen "A" to work more.

Liberals feel that there is no problem that can't be solved by more federal spending and/or another federal agency.

Conservatives will tell you to look in the mirror for the solution to your problems.

Ted Kennedy is a Liberal.

Read Ayn Rand if you need more help figuring this one out.
 
MrTuffPaws said:
I don’t consider myself liberal, yet I don’t consider myself conservative either, but who knows.

Welcome to the majority. Most of us are neither extremist liberals nor extremist conservatives. In fact both make me nervous.

Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

But I think that as people mature they tend to become middle of the road with some conservative opinions and some liberal ones. Of course many people remain extremists, but they are not main stream.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Moore said:
Welcome to the majority. Most of use are neither extremist liberals nor conservatives. In fact both make me nervous.

Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

But I think that as people mature they tend to become middle of the road with some conservative opinions and some liberal ones. Of course many people remain extremists, but they are not main stream.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater
 
tube_ee said:
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
It is funny how little self-identified liberals and authentic conservatives understand one another. Half of what you advocate, an authentic conservative would applaud (though you imagine he would staunchly oppose), while the other half would, for good reason, make him sick to his stomach. I, as a conservative, find it hard to believe that you actually believe half of what you advocate, as it is so inconsistent with the other half.
 
Liberal is the word used to confuse peolpe from finding out that the "politically correct" crowd are really modern day fascists.

If they called themselves Fascists they wouldn't be able to confuse people.

BUt if you only accept your own ideas and want to control other peoples legal actions and beliefs what are you if not a fascist?

Gun registration and confiscation of the 20's, 30's & 40's was by communists, socialists and fascists - these so called liberals are just fascists by another name!
 
When I think of a liberal, I primarily think of someone obsessed with "the greater good". It's someone who can see justification for steam-rolling most any individual (except themself of course) for that intangible concept of "the greater good". In a nut shell, socialism.
 
I've given this a lot of thought, and have had some ideas rattling around "in there" for quite awhile...

I see the political spectrum as being circular vs. linear. In other words, if you proceed past extreme conservatism you find yourself in liberal territory. Or vice versa. It's possible that this only makes sense inside my brain housing group. I consider myself a conservative (without religious orientation), but I don't care what gays do or who has an abortion. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I recognize that half of the population is. I also know that there are going to be abortions regardless of the law. Better to have them done safely than in backrooms where those who have difficulty feel that they can't seek medical care. Unfortunately, legalization encourages the procedure...hmmm.

"Liberalism" is the bastion of "Political Correctness"...the concept that it's "Not OK" to judge someone else's actions/position/lifestyle as "Not OK"; unless they disagree with the liberal point of view..then they are definately "Not OK". OK? The difference here between conservatives and liberals, IMHO, is that the conservatives will recognize your right to your opinion while the liberals will go into attack mode over it.

I agree with a lot of the analysis that tube ee posted, except the inheritence part. It's MY LIFE and MY ASSETS...it's MY DECISION what to do with them at the end of MY LIFE. Just because I've died doesn't confer any ownership of MY STUFF to the government, collectively The People. Society, as a whole, has no right to step in and confiscate/redistribute my property upon my demise if I've decided otherwise.

Ted Kennedy...there's an interesting case study. Beneficiary of inherited political mantle/wealth/position. Poster child for Liberalism? Tossed out of college for cheating on exams, copped a pass on the death of Mary Jo Kopeckne. A total fraud who has gained the aura of respectability...kinda reminds me of my point regarding the circularity of the political spectrum.
 
Folks just keep throwing around terms with little concern for actual meaning. Better still, its being done in a strictly pejorative sense.

"Activist judges", "facists", "socialists", "elitists", "conservatives are the good guys...so liberals are the bad guys" etc... :neener:

Somebody mentioned that an "activist judge" was a judge who rules in opposition to your opinion. That assertion is fairly accurate :D

The very nature of the words conservative and liberal should help us reach some kind of conclusion shouldn't they? The problem is they don't anymore, because the true meanings of the words are twisted by spin doctor parrots on both sides of the fence.

If you are Hannity:
Liberal = wasteful, carefree, morally bankrupt.
Conservative = protective, traditional, morally upright. ;)

If you are Colmes:
Liberal = compassionate, forward thinking, caring.
Conservative = narrow minded, stodgy, cold-hearted. :p

Do we care about common (and inaccurate) usage? If so, then most of the slights against the dreaded blue-staters are spot on. If we are concerned with the recognized academic definition or explanation of a certain political ethos then most of the stones lobbed at "liberals" in this thread are way off base.

Fact is, if you live in modern America; regardless of which side of the fence you are on, you live in a leftist democratic republic that becomes increasingly authoritarian with each passing year. This is thanks mostly to an Executive branch that has been running roughshod over our founding principles for the last 150 years. We have state run education, we have a state-managed economy, we have state operated social programs (welfare, disability, social security, etc.), and so on. Its all sold to us in a pretty little package that says Federal "top-down" control is better and no matter what, Unky Sam can fix it all. Meanwhile the folks at the top of the heap do everything they can to keep the blue-staters scrabbling with the red-staters over issues that have nothing to do with GOVERNANCE. :mad:

rant off...
 
As already noted, using liberal is rather tricky, as the term was co-opted in the early part of the 20th century by the "Radical Reds" as the New York Times of 1920's once put it.

Anyhow, seems to me the dominant organizing principle liberalism as commonly understood in modern day America is based on is that it is the responsibility of The State to provide a "fair" environment for all "the masses" -- whether by preferential hiring/firing practices, steeply progressive taxation, citizen disarmament, or whathaveyou.

I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"

I'd also note that continually needing to come up with new words to describe a belief system (socialist, progressive, "economically liberal") is a sign of a failed belief system -- one that is constantly trying to fix a broken engine with a fresh paint job.

-K
 
Kaylee said:
As already noted, using liberal is rather tricky, as the term was co-opted in the early part of the 20th century by the "Radical Reds" as the New York Times of 1920's once put it.

Anyhow, seems to me the dominant organizing principle liberalism as commonly understood in modern day America is based on is that it is the responsibility of The State to provide a "fair" environment for all "the masses" -- whether by preferential hiring/firing practices, steeply progressive taxation, citizen disarmament, or whathaveyou.

I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"

I'd also note that continually needing to come up with new words to describe a belief system (socialist, progressive, "economically liberal") is a sign of a failed belief system -- one that is constantly trying to fix a broken engine with a fresh paint job.

-K
Excellent point. If leftists actually came out and clearly stated what they actually stood for, they would never be elected to anything. This is the reason for the change in name to liberal, and then to progressive. They have to keep moving or too many people will begin to understand their positions, which will lead to their total loss of political influence. It is also why they are so desperate to retain the courts, as Americans are wising up to them in the political realm. The only way for them to get their policy preferences implemented, therefore, is through unelected courts who can simply impose those policies on the American people without being subject to removal via election.
 
Both liberals and conservatives range across a spectrum of political views. I assume from the opening post that we're trying to talk about the more extreme "Liberal" in the sense of the modern U.S. Liberal Democrat.

Aside from the social stuff like political correctness and strange views of word usage, what I see as a primary point is that liberals almost invariably call for more power to the central government. They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results. I have come to prefer the term "statist" as being more accurate in describing them.

Many other aspects can also be brought to the argument, insofar as behavior patterns and thought/philosophy patterns. Regardless, I believe the term "statist" best provides the best overall umbrella of description.

I further believe that using "statist" provides some explanation as to "RINO" types, and why some alleged conservatives aren't really all that conservative.

Art
 
The Real Hawkeye said:
I, as a conservative, find it hard to believe that you actually believe half of what you advocate, as it is so inconsistent with the other half.

How so? (In other words, what are the inconsistencies you're talking about?)


Kaylee said:
I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"

The military, through thorough training, instills into the raw recruit the basic tenet that the force (platoon, squad, squadron, etc) is only as strong as it's weakest member. This motivates the strongest recruits to help the weakest become strong themselves.

Most "liberals" I know believe in the idea that this is true for the nation as a whole. The idea that if the strongest among us help the weakest among us get stronger, then we all become more prosperous. This is the idea behind scholorships for poorer students, low interest college loans, and (believe it or not) things like "preferential hiring/firing practices". Most of these things are just misguided attempts to help our weakest become strong.

Whether they work or not is secondary... they're what our "leaders" have been able to implement. I'd wholeheartedly welcome any new ideas that would lead us in that direction. Sad to say, though, the last real changes to our social programs that had any positive effect on our country came about while Clinton was in office.



P.S... I'm right up there with ya on the inheritance tax thing. At the most, it should be considered "income" and taxed accordingly. :evil:
 
Modern "liberals" have as much in common with true classical liberals as a VW Rabbit has with a jack rabbit. Classic liberal thought concentrates on individual freedom, limited government, openmindedness, a williness to try new ideas, and an unwillingness to be bound by tradition and/or convention simply because "that's how it's always been."
Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights under law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. The fundamental principles of liberalism include human rights, especially the right to life, liberty, and property; equal rights for all citizens under the law; government with the consent of the governed as determined by open and fair elections; and transparency in government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Most open minded people are liberals to one extent or another, but the word "liberal" was made a boogey-man by conservatives, especially during the Cold War. Liberals didn't help themselves any by allowing socialists and communists into their tent. But what most people here are describing as liberal is more properly termed social or political progressivism.
This is a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging from left-liberal to democratic socialism. Significant media include The Progressive magazine, and the American Prospect. Modern Left Progressivism includes several political figures including Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Peter Camejo. Also in this category are many leaders in the women's movement, labor movement, anti-globalization movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, immigrant rights movement, and gay and lesbian rights movement. Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Greg Palast, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, Suzanne Pharr, and Urvashi Vaid.

Media voices for the Progressive Movement in the United States include Barbara Ehrenreich, Al Franken, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Betsy Rosenberg, and Ed Schultz.

Modern day issues for "progressives" can include: ecology, pollution control, unicameral legislature, publicly-funded healthcare, cessation of the death penalty, affordable housing, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, fusion candidates, a vital Social Security System, alternative (sustainable) energy sources, and smart growth of urban development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States
 
MrTuffPaws said:
What is judicial activism? Honestly, it is a buzz word that means, the SCotUS ruled against the way I think they should.



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?



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


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

-------------------------------

Picky, picky, picky, Mr TuffPaws.

So, what agenda do you stand FOR?

The bottom line, sadly, is that you and your fellow-travelers will be my enemies in the NEXT Civil War.

I know that... and you know that.

Be prepared, son.
 
"Liberal" is a term that has been re-defined so drastically, and abused so much, that it means nothing anymore.

Classically, it meant what "libertarian" does now (aside from a few core principles of law, people leave each other alone and do what they like).
Then, it meant "communist" in the best sense (quasi-voluntary community care, wealth, and sharing).
Then, it meant "socialist" (elite busybodies confiscate wealth and redistribute it according to their view of "helping").
Then, it meant "facism" (gov't pretty much controls businesses toward a social end).
Now, it is meaning "evil" (defend criminals, punish samaritans, destroy ourselves, give aid & comfort to enemies).

Having been so abused, the term is now useless.
I've taken to using the term "Leftist", as it is the only category available devoid of other definition and indicating "as sociopolitically far from me as possible, over here on the right". Cindy Shehan, Hillary, Schumer, Michael Moore, et al are so perverted no independent objective definition can define them.
 
Most "liberals" I know believe in the idea that this is true for the nation as a whole. The idea that if the strongest among us help the weakest among us get stronger, then we all become more prosperous. This is the idea behind scholorships for poorer students, low interest college loans, and (believe it or not) things like "preferential hiring/firing practices". Most of these things are just misguided attempts to help our weakest become strong.

A citizen population in a free country is not a military force. A military unit is given a fixed objective, supplied with the resources to meet it, and all members of said force are expected to sacrifice their own needs and desires in order to meet said objective.

A market economy, in contrast, works precisely because each member therein is given the liberry to pursue their own needs and desires by any means they can dream up (provided they do not suppress the liberties of others in the process).

I should think the events of the latter half of the twentieth century would provide a marked example of the consequences of treating citizens as subject to the plans of the State as opposed to those of free enterprise. That so many fail to grasp such an obvious lesson contrinues to astound me.

Whether they work or not is secondary... they're what our "leaders" have been able to implement.

Please take note of Art's comment about "They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results."

Also please remember that the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is no mere bumper sticker slogan. It is an observation based on thousands of years of recorded human experience.

Results Matter.


I'd wholeheartedly welcome any new ideas that would lead us in that direction.....

"You get more of what you subsidize. You get less of what you tax."

Keep that in mind, the rest will follow.
 
Thinking about Cindy Sheehan, Hillary, Shumer, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.....One common denominator among all of the poster children for the left...none of them ever have to be concerned about prices at the grocery store or their checking acct balance.

None of their "social engineering do-gooding" is going to negatively impact their personal enjoyment of the the high life.
 
Mongo the Mutterer said:
Enlighten me Mr TuffPaws...
GHWBush gave us the '89 import ban that was the first AWB. True it was under Clinton that the nationwide 10 year AW/EBR ban came into effect, but Bush Sr got that ball rolling.

Moondoggie said:
Thinking about Cindy Sheehan, Hillary, Shumer, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.....One common denominator among all of the poster children for the left...none of them ever have to be concerned about prices at the grocery store or their checking acct balance.

None of their "social engineering do-gooding" is going to negatively impact their personal enjoyment of the the high life.

And none of them really support any of my liberties. They are all about "Ban, Impeach, Ban, Impeach, etc etc"
 
Kaylee said:
A citizen population in a free country is not a military force. A military unit is given a fixed objective, supplied with the resources to meet it, and all members of said force are expected to sacrifice their own needs and desires in order to meet said objective.

A market economy, in contrast, works precisely because each member therein is given the liberry to pursue their own needs and desires by any means they can dream up (provided they do not suppress the liberties of others in the process).

I should think the events of the latter half of the twentieth century would provide a marked example of the consequences of treating citizens as subject to the plans of the State as opposed to those of free enterprise. That so many fail to grasp such an obvious lesson contrinues to astound me.



Please take note of Art's comment about "They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results."

Also please remember that the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is no mere bumper sticker slogan. It is an observation based on thousands of years of recorded human experience.

Results Matter.




"You get more of what you subsidize. You get less of what you tax."

Keep that in mind, the rest will follow.


None of which does anything to either refute or confirm anything I posted. I think we mostly agree on these things. I also think, though, that you want to argue against my points on the basis that they just don't sound right... I'm fully aware that our society is not based on military-style behaviors or ethics. Nevertheless, I'll stand behind what I wrote earlier. If you want to help ALL of us, then help the weakest among us become stronger. (With the caveat that this does not apply to true criminals).

Otherwise, I'm firmly in the camp of "If you've got a better idea, let's hear it." All most people want to do is backseat driving, without offering any other solutions...
 
Moondoggie said:
I agree with a lot of the analysis that tube ee posted, except the inheritence part. It's MY LIFE and MY ASSETS...it's MY DECISION what to do with them at the end of MY LIFE. Just because I've died doesn't confer any ownership of MY STUFF to the government, collectively The People. Society, as a whole, has no right to step in and confiscate/redistribute my property upon my demise if I've decided otherwise.

There is also no good argument to tax the same money twice.
 
Mr_Moore said:
Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

Pretty much in agreement with the rest of what you said (not quoted) only I believe that Churchill never said that.

If Churchill did say that you'd need to capitalise 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and then realise that there was a British political party called 'The Liberal Party' and another called 'The Conservative Party'. During his career Churchill switched from the former to the latter, funnily enough just at the time that the Liberal Party was a sinking ship (Admiralty joke perhaps?)

No offence, but I really do hate it when people whip that quote out. It is used merely to imply that 'liberals' are stupid.
 
RealGun said:
There is also no good argument to tax the same money twice.

they do that all the time.

If I work 1 hour and make a dollar, that dollar gets taxed.

I am left with 65 cents. I take that 65 cents and invest it in the stock market, and after bringing that money BACK up to a full dollar, I pull it out (lets leave out capital gains for a minute here). I sell the stock, and make a dollar again, right? It is then taxed...AGAIN. This same dollar has now been taxed twice.

When I die and leave my daughter my favorite pocket watch, nobody at the IRS is gonna get wiggy over it. When I die and leave my daughter my favorite pocket watch, my toyota and my vespa, they might raise an eyebrow. When I die and leave my daughter all the above, plus an estate worth millions, several business ventures worth millions, airplanes, yachts and vacations homes, I don't see much of a problem with the IRS counting it as income, and taxing it accordingly. My daughter didn't work to build all that, but she will certainly profit from it, just as if I had given her a multimillion dollar check.

I think taxes are pretty high, but I am hard pressed to figure out just who we should cut out of that largess. Kids or soldiers? Old folks who built what we now use, or folks with mental retardation? These taxes go to support a WHOLE RANGE of things, not just dreaded social programs, but also for bombs, bullets, roads, tanks, pencils, hammers, boats, cars, trucks, overpasses, tunnels, training, bomb-sniffing dogs, medicines, the CDC, the Coast Guard and other fun stuff that we really want folks that work for us to have at their disposal.

Now, if we could accurately exempt the family farms, I think we might be getting somwhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top