What is a liberal?

I'm just trying to keep terms straight. If we all start using liberalism in a contemporary fashion then what is a social democrat? Do we just ditch it? There's also the issue of the fact that using a word to mean something it doesn't describe basically defeats the purpose of definitions, though no one cares about that apparently.

 

It is too late in America I am afraid. The left has hijacked that word. Distorting the lexicon is one of their favorite games.

 

I am feeling you my kindered spirit; however, to be effective, we need to make accomodations.
If you will take note above, I denote a contemporary liberal with puncuation. That's what it's there for, and it's actually much easier in writing. In person one must continually make the little quotation mark hand signal thingymajig. Looks gay as hell too.

 

/thread...

 

The count is possibly up to three (but perhaps for slightly different reasons) as that is the entire point of my thread. In the event that 'there is nothing liberal about the American left' as claimed by another contributor, why would anyone use the collective term 'liberal' to describe that demographic? It is either wilful misrepresentation, or incredible ignorance, to use the term in that context, in either case it is a great disservice to the language.

 

It is willful misrepresentation. Contemporary liberals are about as liberal as the Affordable Care Act is affordable.

 

I appreciate the response. Happy New Year to you.

 

That's a stereotypical right wing response to something you know nothing about. Liberalism is always about change in the status quo, and conservatives always resists challenges to the status quo. To assume that liberalism would stay where it was at the time of Locke or even the founders of this country, is to admit your ignorance of the term. You (the conservative) hates any change that you see as a threat to the status quo. So of course, the "left has hijacked" the term, and you resort to authoritarianism to maintain what you see as your comfort zone. It's The Conservative Cliff Notes to Liberalism.

 

Is that really any different from the "Social Conservative, the Fiscal Conservative, the Libertarian Right, the Palio-Conservative, the Neo-conservative, the Religious Right? Social Justice is a big deal to the Liberal. Everything is kind of seen through that filter.

 

QUOTE]Liberty is authority over and responsibility for self. Liberty has a voluntary nature. 'Liberals' are today defined by their opposition to liberty./QUOTE]

First you say that Liberty is Authority over...and then you say that it has a voluntary nature? If something has an authority over you then it's not voluntary. You seem to see Liberty in authoritarian terms.

 

In THIS country, I think a liberal is one who believes that government has a big role to play in the distribution of housing, food, medical care, etc. because of the abject failure of the market system to provide those things. I believe a conservative is one who believes that government has a big role in providing them with favors, favorable tax laws, favorable legislation, favorable enforcement, the forceful opening of global markets AND the prevention of the distribution of food, housing, medical care, etc.

 

Liberals wouldn't want any change if they believed the current system was the most possibly liberal one. And conservatives do not always resist changes to the status quo, and example being the tories supporting the ban of child labour in the 19th century.

 

Conservative by definition connotes positive traits, and in non-political terms.

All labels connote positive traits to those who fall under that label, a conservative does not fall under the label of liberal so their usage would appear negative and rightfully so.

It is the same as when liberals use the word conservative, it is not positive in political terms either.

 

Oh so liberals today want to repeal Social Security and the failed war on poverty or do they want the status quo?

 

NONE of the comments you made are related to any reality.
Not worth an answer, as anyone with a logical mind KNOWS that your accusations toward the Left are only delusions.

 

In the US, liberals have largely become pawns of communists in the same way that democratic socialists are in Europe. They largely cannot articulate an agenda that does not involve attacking republicans because that reveals that their aims are the communist aims. Hasn't always been this way, but that is how the current crop operates. Progressives, on the other hand, are statists who will support any change for the sake of change whether or not it is likely to achieve anything positive and damn be the consequences ergo Obama's "Change you can believe in" mantra.

 

Dont feel like you have to be an apologist, go ahead and embrace the control freak left for what it is. If you think one of those is wrong, challenge the issue or accept it. That took me minute, I can get more if you need them. There is no human activity the left doesnt want regulated, controlled or taxed.

 

I think you're seeing an example of what psychologists call "projection". Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude, intolerant, and uncharitable may accuse other people of being rude, intolerant, or uncharitable. His hostility always precedes his intent.

 

Defined by who? Who came up with this definition? You've just admitted a "handful" of exceptions to your sweeping generality, so could you produce this definition that you've come up with? You said, "For the others reading;".... Ok, I'm reading. Who came up with this definition? And then tell me under what authority does this definition carry any weight? Conservatives like yourself, seem to subscribe to authority, so why don't you tell us what is the authority behind this definition you've presented?

 

Well...there you go again. Doing that "liberal" thing of expecting to see facts to support a claim. I'm sure he has some authority figure that came up with this definition. I wonder where it came from? Maybe he invented it. That would make him a self-proclaimed authority. One thing comes across, is authoritarianism at work.

 

So am I. Maybe you should explain what you mean rather than leaping into the arrogance pool, and tell the average "dumbass American" what you mean.

 

The fact that I even have to explain it is just pathetic. This is why definitions exist, so people know what you mean when you say something, but when you start using words to mean things they don't mean, then you can't be sure anymore.

Then again, people also say the word "like" after and before every comma and no one apparently cares so I'm already losing the battle for proper speech.

 

You're speculating on a hypothetical. What makes you think that Liberalism is so monolithic that all liberals would ever agree that "the current system" was the most liberal system possible? You're assuming some Utopian idea, and Liberals reject the notion of perfection in any imperfect man-made system. That however, doesn't mean that a system cannot be improved and work better for its citizens. All systems of governance are man made and man is fallible and prone to error. In this country a liberal believes that our intelligence is to be used to solve our man made problems by eliminating error, rather than perpetuating it.

And you're giving me an anecdotal example of "Tories" ( Are you talking about an English political party?) supporting the ban of child labour in the 19th century as evidence that conservatism in this country (America) isn't characterized by their resistance to change. Conservatism in America is always looking to maintain existing institutions. The Tories that existed in this country during our revolution supported the King. Not...Democracy. Another example of their supporting the existing institution. Conservatives in this country opposed Child Labor laws...and a women's right to vote, and civil rights, and integration of the schools, and voting rights for blacks.

 

There is nothing "liberal" about a guy who want to force away 40% of a person's living and spend it on the ruling class.

 

Why would they want to repeal Social Security? It's obvious that it's the most successful program ever devised, and as anything it can always stand to be improved. Nothing is perfect. But why would they be interested in repealing it. What would you replace it with? And...The War on Poverty? You're reaching back to the 60's to make your case? How about the War on Drugs. That's an obvious failure. The thing you might want to consider is the moral worthiness of any program, before attacking it.

Emmanuel Kant wrote The Critique of Pure Reason. Possibly the most important work in modern philosophy. In it he asks this; what gives an action its moral worth? He says, what makes an action morally worthy, consists not in the consequences or results that flow from it, what makes an action morally worthy has to do with the motive. The intention for which the act is done. What matters is the motive. And the motive must be of a certain kind. Do the right thing for the right reason. Despite your cynicism, there is nothing sinister going on here.

“A good will isn’t good because of what it effects or accomplishes, it’s good in itself. Even if by utmost effort the good will accomplishes nothing it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself.”