Printable View
It seems that in the past few years, "Liberal" has gone from a word to describe a point of view on the political spectrum to a derogatory term that conservatives use to label anyone that they disagree with. It's gotten so rampant that the liberals have found a new term to describe themselves: "Progressive," which sounds really wussy to me.
So I'm asking for your opinion on this. How do you feel about the downfall of "Liberal," how do use "Liberal," and what are your thoughts on "Progressive?"
Progressive is a wimp out by those who follow liberial politicial thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Really? It is entirely converse here in the People's Republic. Liberal folks and Socialists use the word "conservative" and "Tory" as an offensive term...Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
i dont think its used as a derogatory term, although maybe as a label to people they disagree with - in which case its at least partly a view on the political spectrum...Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I agree with Redleg, and I'm a liberal.
Our 'side' tends to use the 'conservative' label in much the same blunt instrument manner, as a dismissive derogatory akin to baby-eaters and fascists - it's just that conservatives tend to be so much better at condescension and insults. ~;p
Liberal has a long and honourable history as a political philosophy, and I wear that badge with pride (even in the current US definition of the term).
It's only perjorative if you are unsure of your ground. The modern-day US Democrats, for example, are so bereft of ideology that they run screaming from the word 'liberal' as if it is a curse. They should stand tall and try to convince the American voter that the liberal way is a good choice. If they can't do that honestly and forthrightly, and bring the people with them, then they have no right to expect power by stealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
*sigh* Liberals most often are conservative or centrist. There are also left-liberals who are right of socialists. I'm progressive and it's certainly not a wimp-out, it's a political and social point of view that is more than hundred years old. I think it even predates "liberal". Progressive thought and liberal thought can converge on some issues but are diametrically opposite on others.
"Progressive" and "Liberal" are almost the same thing. Liberal technically means an open-minded attitude, someone who is willing to process new ideas and see it from the other side's view. It does not mean leftist at all. It is the same with conservative and rightist; conservative means a very closeminded view of the world, only accepting it only one way and no other way. I, for one, am rather conservative; but I am also extremely far left. It's simple, really.
We need to go back to "leftwing" and "rightwing" so we quit confusing people.
Exactly, which is why it's a meaningless 'wimp out' for liberals to pretend they have some sort of ownership of the term - which is what I think the OP was asking - certainly what I was trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Real progressive politics are by no means a wimp out, in my opinion.
:smile:
I call myself a liberal mostly because of the reluctance of politicians today to use it for themselves. It's my anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-Right declaration. Since I tend to agree with the views attributed as "liberal", then it suits me fine.
But labeling me "left" or "liberal" is only half the story, for spiritually my world view is best described as Taoist/Buddhist. Political labels, like "liberal", cannot adequately explain the divisions within this forum community.
If you must use a political label, the left/right axis seems to be more universal, but just as limited.
I think the use of the one "liberal" by the US right is rather an own goal. The word has such fine connotations[1]. One could even say it poses the question: why do they hate freedom?
The European right (Hayek, the academic Thatcherites etc) are much smarter and try to steal the term for themselves. The centrists won't let them get away with it however. And with the death of socialism, it may be the only decent cloak us leftists have remaining. I mean - who thinks the term "social democrat" is sexy?
[1]Liberty (aka, " personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression"; "immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence"; "freedom of choice"); John Stuart Mill; Ellis Island; Liberty Ships ... I mean - who wants to be illiberal?
Liberal has had so many different meanings historically and geographically.
In a politico-philosophical sense, everybody is a liberal nowadays. The US constitution is a pivotal liberal document, the English, German and French enlightenment was liberal, if you believe in freedom and democracy you're a liberal.
In a political, contemporary sense, the meaning is more precise, but quite different between the US and in continental Europe. I'm not sure where the UK, Canada and others fit in.
Wiki: In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to modern liberalism, as contrasted with conservatism. American liberals endorse heavy regulation for business, a social welfare state, and support broad racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace multiculturalism, and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats.
I am a liberal, that is, somewhat right of the centre.
It's just a bit of mix-up on the part of the right wing in America, that's all. They use the term liberal to mean everything they disagree with, including many amusing and mutually exclusive ideologies. And until very recently, all you needed to do to be "liberal" in their eyes was to disagree on any level with Presidente Bush. Thank goodness that's wearing off.
Communists, who believe in an all-powerful state? Liberal. Libertarian small-government activist? Liberal. Animal rights fringe? Liberal. Moderate mainstream voter? Liberal.
Oh, and all of them are "wimps" for not accepting the term.
And never mind that the Declaration of Independence is the most liberal document in the history of mankind ...
In Australia Liberal means the conservatives.
OK, I agree ... I think, atleast about the stealth part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
A Liberal cares about the whole of the society, about progressing to a future that includes all Americans. That includes improving the situation of all people in the world. They see beyond their own individual existance and desire that all of humanity share the wealth (in some manner) as they do. They also wish not to lose the middle-class as a buffer to the truely poor.
Where as, Conservatives, wish to limit the working man to an unlivable working wage ($5.25 an hour, no bonuses for overtime, no health insurance, no guaranteed retirement - if their company claims being poor while guaranteeing their CEOs with multi-million-billion dollar ones), a possition of accepting that Unions be illegal (the fireing of employees that desire a union is a good thing, to them), and a total return to the past. Preferably 1880 and the robber barrens - and a complete laize
faire, unrestricted by law business atmosphere (or, as the GOP likes to call it = deregulation, sounds so cool eh?). Conservatives do not wish to protect individuals rights (unless they are businesses), but to return us to a time where only businesses had rights. It has been the greatest propaganda program of my time.
It began with Agnew, whom despite being disgrace publicaly still earned millions after his Presidential pardon. He proved that even when a public figure gets caught, he can still make millions if he has the good on others - or he knows how to get away with it.
Lay, will spend less than a year in jail. Guaranteed, he knows something that could ruin atleast one top Bushy.
That Liberals are seen as cowardly is an illusion. It is a matter that the propaganda of the Right is all but overpowering in its ability to spew its rotgut venom.
Liberal:
Imagine, someone saying that America could be better than it is. And, that saying that could be used as an accusastion of that person's patriotism - their being challanged for accusing America for not being great. Imagine, someone stating that no person should be held in a prison for 4 years without being charged with a crime (Gitmo) - and being accused of supporting terrorism. Imagine, someone saying we need a widening of immigration that includes the families of people already here (Mexicans, etc.), they'ld be dead meat in the political theaters of the SouthWest - even though they would be correct morally (and for families, and eventually for the f'n GOP). Imagine, someone saying that we shouldnot have gone to war on the word of our "Wartime President" because he lied, or atleast his advisors did.
Or, just imagine that the only peeps that had the balls to say or question anything about the war in Iraq were Liberals .... and they were accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, being whoosys, hating America, liking the Dixie Chicks, not loving Big Oil, hating big business, and didn't appreciate the tax breaks for the wealthy. Damn Commy bastards - not loving the rich and all that Dubya has done for them and his family.
FDR, had his $1 a year men (all claiming to be Liberals) - not that they didn't benefit in other ways, but they didn't make anything directly from our taxes. Bush, has his hitmen - grab what you can now that everything is legal (just ask his Justice Department ... that stops investigation, oops FBI not directly under him) and gives the USA away. After all, God made him President. And, God said he should hated Liberals and all that defy him.
So, yeah, Liberals need to stand up. Thing is, more Conservatives are liberal than wish to accept the dirty term. Fact is, many that think of themselves as conserves are liberals. As in: liberals love this nation more, want it to remain the moral nation of the world and want the original values created by our constitution be extended to any that willingly embrace them. After all, values cannot be enforced on anyone - and if one has morals they realise that they are theirs, not someone else. Morals are personal - not national.
Turning the word "liberal" into a dirty word was a purely propagandic event. It took a word for caring about the future and turned it into meaning "weak", ineffective (which is what we have become), and unpatriotic (because we allowed it). Thing is, more men have died for liberalism in America than conservativism. No one has ever died for their family or offspring to stay stagnant - stagnant is what conservatism is all about.
Conservatists want things to return to the good old days of 1880 economics. To the poorer classes serving the military, and the wealthy gobbeling up the properties and wealth of those serving the nation. And, it's working.
You go girl -GOP.
I'm conservative.
Golden! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Really, though, liberal is a very evolving term, more vague than the term conservative itself due to its position of supporting change as opposed to conservative being, well, not changing.
That's by definition at least--nay, make that just one of the definitions...
Classical liberalism, the Enlightenment tradition and the oh-so-proud US Constitution, is the origin of the term. Liberty = liberal.
Modern liberalism is more complex. I cannot pinpoint its exact beginning but I can tell you it existed at least before FDR came to power, so I must presume Progressive roots (Progressivism = a very wide range of movements in the early 1900s that frankly range from the KKK to Women's Rights Movement, all intended to change the "sick" society tired of social darwinism and the laissez-faire "inhumanity"). Indeed, to proclaim what is liberalism, like fascism, it is easier to say what it is not: it's not conservative for sure. :sweatdrop:
It has become some sort of a badword, yes, but only to half of the USA. Just half. No worries. If half the world fails to hate you, then something is wrong with you anyway.
The US use of "liberal" is easier translates to "Leftist position." The European use? Dunno. The Asian (particularly, Middle East) use? Rare, but when use...the state needs to talk to you. :skull:
IMO, liberal is becoming like the “N” word. It use to be an accepted term until it started being used in a derogatory way and because of the desire of people to not be called it other labels are being encouraged instead, like “progressive”. I don’t think most people using the term really know what the genuine meaning of it is, only their “slang” interpretation. :bow:
I like to be liberal with the amount of whip cream I put on my pie.
It's a fashion thing, the latest insult for the (mainly american) right wingers against anyone that doesn't agree with them or their esteemed leaders. It's also a way for them to explain away someone they don't agree with or like:
"liberal, that's it he's/she's a liberal. I don't have to listen to his/her viewpoint I can safely ignore them... phew"
They'll have a new favourite word/phrase next year, something like:
"progressive wimps!"
To digress somewhat...
Baroness Thatcher is a Neo-liberal, not a Tory.
Disraeli, the Earl of Shaftesbury, those Conservative founders and Arch-Tories were more like modern Liberals (their principles of "One Nation Conservatism" and "Tory Democracy" promoted social mobility, help for the poor, and others) than Thatcherites. Conversely to what his opposition say, David Cameron is perhaps returning to his party's founding roots when he embraces "Liberal Conservatism", as he called it.
His Grace is quite right. Maggie was a Whig, not a Tory, (no one who destroyed so many time hallowed institutions could possibly be regarded as a Tory).
On topic, I must say the neocons' misuse of liberal annoys me greatly, since there is a fine right of center liberal tradition and these jonny come lately's with their weird obsessions should be told to get their anti-abortion demonstrations off its lawn. In fact, if I am asking myself if I approve of a politican or not, I think more in terms of authoritarian (bad) vs liberal (good) rather than left and right. I'd vote for an intelligent new labourite (Hilary benn say) before I voted for a bible bashing busybody like Ann Widdecome.
The word 'liberal' has pretty much been voided of all meaning by a jumbling of terms in the Anglophone world; a phenomena that is most advanced in the US. The dichotomy of liberal v. conservative is used in the states as a stand in for that of left v. right, but is created out of sets of related terms that don't mean that to begin with.
The term 'liberal' is properly used in opposition to absolutist, or in the modern world totalitarian. Essentially whatever form of statist authoritarianism is in vogue at any given historical moment is what ‘liberal’ properly stands in opposition to. Essentially it is term relating to the level of state intervention in people’s lives, and it is a term that is, historically, anti-statist, although not entirely anti-state. As someone mentioned early with admirably simplicity, ‘liberty = liberal’. Liberal then is a term that relates not to any particular point on the left-right political spectrum, but rather it is grounded in the belief that, as Von Humboldt phrased it, ‘the state tends to make man an instrument to serve it’s arbitrary ends, overlooking his individual purposes.’ Most America ‘liberals’ are thus far from liberal in it’s true meaning as the see the state not as an anti-human institution, as classical liberals and their leftwing (anarchist, libertarian Marxists, libertarian socialists, etc) and rightwing (American libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc) ideological heirs do, but rather as a tool to wield in pursuit of their ends (ends Humboldt would argue to be arbitrary but that they would argue to be grounded in the common good, or perhaps in the interests of humanity).
The term ‘conservative’ on the other hand is properly part of a constellation of terms that relate not to views on state power, but rather relate to views on changes, be it social, political, or economic. The major dichotomy of this set of terms is progressive v. conservative, but the constellation of terms really goes from (right to left) reactionary (roll back change), conservative (avoid change), progressive (embrace steady change), revolutionary (foster radical and immediate change). In reality many of today’s American ‘conservatives’ are reactionaries, not only opposed to change but in favor of rolling back change (usually the changes fostered by the Great Society legislation of LBJ, the socially liberal legislation passed under Nixon, and often those encouraged by FDR’s New Deal legislation). Conservative then, also isn’t related to any specific point on the left-right spectrum; an opposition to change in a rightward direction is technically conservative. This is especially true if there is no corresponding desire for social change in a leftist context, further is a corresponding opposition to change in a leftward direction is present then such opposition is in fact not only unarguably conservative, it is the definition of conservatism.
As the two terms don’t relate to the same concepts, constructing a dichotomy between them (i.e. that of liberal v. conservative), as has been done in the states, is bound to create no end of confusion and misunderstanding.
Ok, so if I may sum up all of your fine words into my own little definition:
-Liberal originally meant thinking bold, open-minded, tolerant, etc.
-In Europe it's between conservatism and socialism (So in the center).
-In Australia it's the same thing as conservatism (Out of respect for Papewaio I'm not going to make any comments about it being another upside-down thing coming out of Australia :saint:)
-In the US it's left of center, however it has been hijacked by conservatives and the meaning is turning into "the enemy."
I think that's a pretty quick and dirty definition, no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yeah, I'd just like to congratulate KafirChobee on a really nasty rant. That's the juciest one I've heard in a long time, you should be commended for it mate. :balloon2:
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate analogy, but I've always thought of the poloitical oreintations of Athens and Sparta during the Pelloponesian Wars as a good picture of the differences of Liberal and Conservative. Athens, with its volatile "Democracy" seemed to be more progressive, and multi-cultured in her approach to the world. Sparta, on the other hand, was much more "right wing" in the extreme. The Spartans were always afraid of the uprising of the helot slaves (a little like the fearing of the unions by the modern conservatives), as well as resisting change in her political outlook (keeping the status quo was highly desirable). This was why she feared the Athenians so, not militarily, but for her ideas. Being open to new ideas is at the heart of "Liberalism", and it is this is possibly what many conservatives fear.
PS: for the record, I am dead set against the idea of the "entitlement state" and for the so-called amnesty for illegal immigrants. I will, however, fight tooth and nail for my right to make my views known, and damn to h**l any man or woman who calls me unpatriotic for doing so. I also call my fellow countrymen to return to their moral principals, but never at the expense of denying another freedom.
All right....I'll get off the soapbox now. :2cents:
Actually Literal.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
The Australian Liberal Party along with the Australian National party has been in a coalition that is in charge at the Federal level of Australia for 10 years now. While the Australian Labour Party has been the primary opposition (there are other parties) at the Federal level.
While the states on the whole have been held by the state labour parties for the last decade.
The Liberal Party are the fiscal conservative, family orientated, business helping, and hard on illegal immigration.
The Labour Party is similar to the UK's. It is more union and welfare orientated, although its fiscal policy if anything favoured businesses because they had such close ties to the unions they could stop wage rises with little more then a wimper from the trade unions.
How's housing prices in Australia, Pape? Your "liberals" sound pretty hip.
Very high in Sydney (to the point the Reserve Bank said that young people should not more to Sydney as the cost of housing is too much), quite low in some parts of the country.
Perth used to have reasonable prices until the resource boom took off.
The median house loan is about $340,000 Aus... however this would only get you a 2 bedroom apartment in most of Sydney.
Median Aus: $330,000
NSW: $400,000
Sydney Metro: $550,000
In my local area: $450,000
WA: $380,000
My old WA neighbourhood: $396,000
What is the square footage (size if square foot is not used, in bedrooms) of the house for that median price. Only for comparision sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It is highly dependent on which city and how close to the CBD you are in.
For instance near where I live you can get a house at $450k with
House: 3 bedrooms 2 bathrooms 2 carspaces
Building area: 125 sqm
Land area: 271 sqm
However in Perth:
House: 4 bedrooms 1 bathroom 4 carspaces on a 671 sqm block
http://www.domain.com.au/
Well I guess I should count myself rich compared to land in Austrialia.
2100 Square foot house - 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car garage with ingound swimming pool - small one that is - $150,000.
One can get a really nice house in the Dallas Area for under 150,000 almost anywhere.
Yeap that is about 200 sqm for about 200,000 Australian... which is what Perth prices were 3 years ago.
political affilliations are tossed around as insults, subtle argumentative challenges, and sometime people just wanting to sound smart when they are in the company of what they percieve as like minded individuals. I hate uninformed liberals more than I hate neocons (there I go, I had to do it)
What tickles me are the people who use these terms in normal, everyday discussions in social and workplace settings. Coming here to argue and lose and hear others take on things is one thing, sitting around a dinner table at a restraunt and having a guy I don't know respond to my complaint about the high price of traffic tickets with some "big government liberals" crap is both amusing and tiresome. It's almost as if they are begging -- just YEARNING -- for someone to have a political discussion with them. My personal favorite is when people drop Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Micheal Moore and O'Reilly sound bytes without giving due credit, perhaps not realizing the people at the table may read each of those pundits.
And bars are the worse. I don't go to drink to have serious political discussions. If you want to trade funny barbs and light hearted insults with people you know and trust -- go for it. But for the love of God, don't get liquored up and start ranting about politics with a bunch of people you don't know. I'm there to look at tits and talk about sports movies and video games and local events, not talk about "tax and spend democrats" or "right wing extremists."
BTW-- if you ever want to become really unpopular with your girlfriends hippy friends at a party, offer to be the designated driver and at some point lead the conversation to where you can matter of factly say "yeah, I'm carrying a .44. Don't worry, I'm not drunk."