Howdy! After a month of protests in America and the mess in Europe (i.e. the "migrant crisis"), caused by liberal policies, do you think liberals care about liberty at all?
Ahh, I can't choose how to vote. I consider myself a liberal but most of the people who call themselves liberal are not actually liberal precisely for the reasons you identified. "Liberal" has become confused somewhere to supporting very illiberal ideals. I care alot about liberty but I don't think many others do, and therefore we have embarked upon a dangerous path towards tyranny with data suppression and social oppression.
That confused me a bit when I joined an American forum so I think of it like this - a liberal is someone with an ideology of extreme tolerance, and a libertarian is someone who believes in the liberty and rights of the individual.
You're right in the sense that the way Americans use the term 'liberal' is different to how it is used in Europe. Americans use the terms liberal and conservative to designate the opposite poles of a political axis, whereas in Europe this axis goes more along the lines of socialist - liberal - conservative. That being said, unfortunately I think the American usage of the term liberal is a false axis. Generally liberals and conservatives in the USA will tend to agree on economic matters (ownership of property, the extent to which companies ought to be taxed etc.) and their controversies are related to matters of 'tolerance/intolerance'. Bernie Sanders showed us that there is the hunger for a Leftist alternative to this false axis, but unfortunately he was cut down before he had a chance to bloom. The task for Americans therefore, as I see it, is to transform the Democrat party into a properly democratic socialist alternative to the 'liberal/conservative' opposition.
As an American I'm hoping the mess we're having now gives birth to a strong third party. Libertarians are the most likely party that will fill that spot. If this does happen we will be in line with what you mention. Three parties......Democrat (Socialist), Libertarian (Liberal), Conservative. The word Liberal has been bastardized by the left and the right in this country and there are many older "classical" Liberals that still follow the word as you use it.
It can be confusing, given how the media operates and how the terms are misused on all sides. It would probably take a book to lay it out, though, more than few posts, but the 'paleo-liberals' of the 20th century, the Humphrey's, Rayburns, and especially the Moynihans are a completely different animal from 'progressives' and 'leftists'; most are moderates, slightly left of center on the American political spectrum on many issues, and patriots, more than most on the right wing. The term 'liberal' mostly applies to having a looser interpretation of the Constitution re government powers in most cases, both state and Federal. Many right of center conservatives' do as well, while the far right is isolationist, thinks the military's and police agencies' only job is to shoot down uppity proles and the like and act as a private army for the well heeled, and of course enforce a government policy of socializing costs while privatizing profits, basically. Both the faux 'left', who are essentially neo-fascists and racist gangs now, and the fake 'Right' naturally use all sorts of confusing and contradictory rhetoric to cover their real agendas, which is merely politicizing self-centered narcissism and the politics of mindless self-indulgence and has nothing to do with government. This quote sums up both sets of wingnuts, most especially the 'libertarian' nonsense heard from both wings: "NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained. Stirling S. Newberry
I'm sure you know your US politics better than I, but the term 'libertarian' is a tricky one. Obviously it is related to ultra-conservatives or survivalists like Alex Jones. In Europe there are some anarchist groupings that would coin a 'left libertarianism', but that's a lot different. If you mean to say that there can be some kind of regrouping of the centre-ground, I have to disagree with you. The centre-ground is losing face all over the world and I doubt it will return. The world truly is becoming electrified in its polarity. People like Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton are not possible anymore. If there is to be a libertarian party in the USA, I envisage a kind of alt-right type party, growing in popularity, a true new fascism for our age.
In the 2008 the US Libertarian Party, which had been taken over by opportunistic Tea Party-type conservatives, nominated Congressman Bob Barr for President. Barr voted for the Patriotic Act, for the attack on Iraq, was anti-gay rights, and anti-abortion. Then, in 2012 and 2016 the LP nominated Gary Johnson for President, a wishy-washy libertarian, but at least not a conservative. Old-time libertarians were not just pro-individual liberty, but extremely tolerant, believing in live and let live unless someone is actively aggressing on someone else. One of the most extremely consistent believers in individual liberty is Jacob Hornberger with the Future of Freedom Foundation, who doesn't let unpopularity of a particular part of individual liberty stand in his way of defending it. Here is his case that all people are created equal and should be allowed to travel and live wherever they want to: http://www.fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/
Which is why 'Old time Libertarians' are prime fodder for the new pole of reaction today which is growing. I refer to the internet sensation of alt-right. It's perfectly in line with this thinking, which is essentially tolerant of male homosexuality, individual expressions of whatever you like, but conservative to the core as it concerns property relations, distribution of wealth etc. Yes, this new right-wing expression may be at odds with a more socially conservative old guard, but only in the sense that the nature of reaction is changing. It is no longer unacceptable to be conservative and gay, conservative and black etc. Just take a look at the popularity of somebody like Milo yiannopoulos for example.
Instead of using the term "liberal" I would call it "the left". Their concerns only deal with the collective which is why they attach themselves so closely to "identity politics". Identity politics is merely a tool to make everyone identify as "victims". That is the "collective" that is at odds with "individual liberty".. Maybe it is just me, but when I hear the word "liberty", the word "individual" is something I always feel belongs with it. Being a person of Faith, I see it as how God views everyone of us, As individuals. We receive our Salvation on our individual belief.....not as a "collective". Our rights come from God as stated in the Declaration of Independence. That is precisely how "individual" Americans viewed their situation when they founded and settled this great country. Rugged individualists were the Founders. Now we have a large collective that embrace the "herd mentality". It is much like how a rancher would treat his cattle. Decisions are always based on what is in the best interests of the herd as a whole. The herd must stay together because they are all the same and must be treated as such. Any cows requiring individual treatment must be culled from the herd so as not to bring them down. Individual expression is suppressed in the name of "Political Correctness". Today we must learn to differentiate between "news" and" fake news" due to the lack of integrity that has come about through our media. IMHO this has come about through "fake education" that has permeated our schools and Universities. No, the left (liberals today) have no concern for individual liberty.
No sorry, there never was such a distinction between individualism/collectivism. Society is always a collective, just look at the different religious denominations of the early USA and tell me where this 'rugged individualism' fits in, it does not. You have tightly bound religious communities who literally would not have survived without collective inter-dependence. Individualism is an ideology, not a fact, for it has no real basis of existence to begin with. It suits the USA as part of an ideology in that it serves to reproduce the existing social order in people's heads, their ideas. But it is nothing more than superstition. As far as real things go, the incredible inter-connectedness of systems in any society, let alone a complex society like the USA, prohibit the enactment of this individualism in practise. Society relies on a complex web of social relationships, whether it recognises this as a fact or not.
America really doesn't have Hard Left and Hard Right presence in any truly appreciable way on our politics, so we manufacture them out of rhetoric to paint anyone who doesn't agree with us as one.
Ah but US politics is not unique in this regard. Simply, the political compass has shifted to the right hard in the past few decades. Any hard-left presence in the USA is fringe lunacy (I say this as a Marxist), the political conditions in the USA right now do not warrant a hard-left programme. Any such programme would be tantamount to doing nothing and 'waiting for the masses to achieve a level of class-consciousness' where Marxists would be magically relevant again. There are many small groups like this in Europe and the USA and they are all worthless. Unfortunately we do have a hard-right which is growing in popularity and I believe is extremely dangerous, especially in the USA. I mean of course the alt-right phenomena. Yes, fringe stuff right now maybe, but I see the potential for this movement to link up with elements of the ruling class in the USA (the Silicon Valley tech yuppies for one, just look at a guy called Peter Theil).
I still maintain there isn't one in the US. I think people appear to be going right because the last 8 years was someone who was allegedly on the left who didn't do anything significant to help people who fear for their futures. It see-saws back and forth between the two parties. It is less about political ideology and more about people are just scared and are looking for assurances that things will improve, and perhaps the time frame for that improvement having to be shown is shortening some. More people did vote for Hillary Clinton. Trump just threaded some needles. From my perspective, the DNC is moving more toward fascism than the GOP which seems to be realizing now that they control everything, they have to walk a very fine line and be more progressive if they want to stay in power.
I find this a little naive. In the UK things have absolutely shifted right in the past few decades to the point where Corbyn calling for the re-nationalisation of the railways is considered a 'socialist' policy. The railways were state-controlled until the 1980s. All anti-austerity politics in the UK is considered socialist, whereas a few decades ago, capitalist austerity politics would have been considered right-wing extremism. It's all about the context. In revolutionary contexts, even good-old social conservatism is considered extremist, traitorous, counter-revolutionary and worthy of repression.
Yes absolutely their problem often times is that their beliefs in equality and fairness go head to head with the reality of the human condition. In a ideal world everyone would be treated fairly, justly, and pleasantly. Everyone would have work, food, housing, and clothing and the means to improve themselves. Borders would just be lines drawn for the purpose of taxation and administration. And all cultures would coexist in harmony and tolerance. But this is not an ideal world and that is where the conservative comes into play. The Conservative believes much of the same things as the liberal but it is tempered by the realities of the world. Our planet can and is a ugly place at times and you have to take a measured approach to everything. But of course if you approach everything like a conservative the pace of progress would slow to a crawl since you can easily over analyze things. In the end the world needs both to act in concert to achieve a stable outcome and prosperous outcome.
The UK things have nothing to do what I posted. The US doesn't have a parliament so these hard factions have no hope of gaining power here.
That's really not what I'm saying. US and UK politics mirror each other closely. Believe me, what gains traction in the USA is relevant here too. As far as these 'hard factions' getting parliamentary seats, that is of secondary concern to their ability to affect the level of political discussion in our countries. What counts is the present. Right now, right-wing forces are growing in popularity and legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary people. This is happening in Europe and the USA. The fact that they appear as small, extra-parliamentary movements doesn't matter. And in fact this is not even the case in Europe, as Le Pen in France has a chance of winning the next French election. These movements are inter-related and draw strength and credibility from each other. What happens in the West repeats itself across the Western world and even further. It's not an accident that Trump and Putin are sympathetic to one another, they represent the degeneracy of politics and point toward a very grim future.
First I believe that more people voted for Trump because he wasn't Clinton than because they heart the Donald. Trump won't have a second term. Second, in the here and now, the Congressional GOP leadership under Speaker Ryan will impose fiscal discipline on this Administration which will keep him from delivering on most of his rhetoric. When working class people see their food bills going up drastically under Trump's Round Them Up and Ship Them Home fervor, they are not going to be happy. We, as a country, or more individually self-interested than we are ideologically motivated. Economic Nationalism is pretty freaking awesome right up to the point that I go buy something. Then I want the much cheaper Chinese knockoffs.
Libertarians in the US come in many stripes, but mostly they are more like the old school Liberals. Small Government, Freedoms for the people, and Conservative of economics. As for the middle I think your wrong. The more people I talk to the more are not happy with the far left or the far right. They have issues coming to terms that they may need to define themselves as middle is usually the problem.
The alt-right is about as far from libertarianism as you can get. There is a Libertarian Party in the US. It is worlds apart from the alt-right and fascism.
But there's no such thing as the alt right party. Anyone can make up names. Can we call liberal extremists the Nazi-left party since we're at it?
It's yes and no. They care about liberty so long as it fits with their agenda. Their views of liberty are different from yours. For example, conservatives are perfectly fine with government surveillance, the death penalty, and illegalizing abortion, but care about liberty when it comes to guns, taxes, and such. Vice versa, liberals care about liberty when it comes to marijuana, healthcare, and civil rights, but are perfectly fine with banning guns, using your money to pay for someone else's healthcare, and leaking into the economy.
I don't think you can know what Fascism actually means. Hint: it's not libertarian, it's authoritarian. I also don't think you can know what the Alt-Right is, if you think they're potential Fascists. They are simply socially liberal political conservatives.
