What is a liberal?

Hey Leo.

A Liberal per the American definition is on the left side of the American political scene. The extreme far left consists of those that align themselves with the values of Marxist Communism. Short of that is more of a European Socialist. In both cases it is valuing a central control government that redistributes wealth to make more "even" This being the chief main point of socialism; to take from those that have and give to those that need. So centralized government attempting to affect or engineer social change within society.

 

That covers it for me!

 

Oh that is a bunch of hooey.

 

Aside from being warped and inaccurate in your prespective, I applaud you effort to "define" the idioligy terminoligies with such fine examples, but in the real world all that means NOTHING. Why? Because the terms Liberal and Conservative are defined by people's actions, not how they precieve the meaning of the words. Conservatives are defined by people like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Sarha Palin, Machel Bachman, John McCain, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, John Boehner and the actions they take.
Likewise Liberals are defined by people like Bernie Sanders, Elizibath Warren, J.F.K., Joe Bidden, John Lewis, Howard Dean, Jim McDermott, Marcy Kaptur, and their actions through their positions.

It's so much simpler if you just cut it down to who's doing the right thing and who is doing the wrong things in life. All the philisophical explinations in the world don't matter or carry any weight when the terms are adopted by specific people, wether you think they are correct or not, they will define those terms by action and by deed. Explination is irrelevent.

 

Thank you for that thoughtful and helpful response. My question was rather badly put, but I couldn't think of how else to put it. Badly, because it gave the impression that I was asking about American politics and the Democrat supporters in particular.

My question was really about the use of the word 'liberal' as a negative term. Irrespective of common usage in US politics, the adjective and the noun connote positive traits by definition, and in non-political terms. I was merely asking why it was being used to signify the diametric opposite in political terms.

 

No, thank you for thanking me. And don't worry, it's not like they actually read the OP. They would come here posting partisan poo just because you mentioned 'liberal'. Just ignore them, and report them if you notice the slightest violation of any rule

I think it's only used as a negative term by people who are opposed to self-described liberals. Id est, conservatives and republicans. But of course not by most conservatives and republicans, which are decent people and realise that liberal isn't an insult. But then there's the partisans who are not decent... Yes, liberal is synonymous with freely so it's as positive as freely is, which is to say, dependent on the circumstances.

 

Nope. . .that is more like a Conservative. . .if someone doesn't follow what "tradition" wants us to do. . .it is "wrong!"

A liberal prefers to progress toward the future and make changes where changes are needed, while trying to leave everyone the freedom to choose for themselves on all issues, INCLUDING abortion, sexual orientation and religion (or no religion).

 

There are just as many progressives on the 'right' as there are on the 'left'. This thread is about the ones one the left.

There are those who do not see the imposition of their best intentions upon others as a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves; they see it as an alternative to that which is substandard. In my opinion, such a benevolent arrogance should be reserved to God and the parents of small children.

Progressives on the left, 'liberals', and progressives on the right, 'neo-cons', are both pocessed of the same benevolent arrogance and the same deisre to have their very best intentions for others imposed upon them.

The greatest threat to life is the threat to liberty. The greatest threat to liberty comes not from those who would impose their less-than-best intentions upon others, it comes from those who would impose there very best intentions upon others.

Pride is the killer. We need to compartmentalize it as much as possible, and liberty is the least worst way to do that.

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

And yes, so are many on the right.

 

I could almost agree IF the issues that the RIGHT advocate for were not "FORCING" their "ideologies" on everyone, while the issues that the LEFT is "forcing" on people are issues of "choice," that is. . .

The RIGHT wants to limit free choice for women, and want to LIMIT marriage to heterosexual couples.
The LEFT wants to FOSTER FREE CHOICE for women (NOT IMPOSE ABORTION), and want to FOSTER FREEDOM OF CHOICE in term of sexuality (NOT IMPOSE GAY MARRIAGE ON EVERYONE!).

Just because of those facts. . . I believe the LEFT is promoting MORE freedom, and the RIGHT is trying to LIMIT freedom.

And, yes. . . EVERYONE on the Right is not against women's choice or sexual equal rights. . .THANK GOD!

 

I believe the arguments made are that life should be protected and therefore abortions are wrong, and that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and therefore same sex couples simply do not fit the definition. That doesn't have much to do with forcing anyone.

 

Yeah, I decided to go with truth to keep it simple.....

 

Good examples; however, you've shot your wad. With everything else 'liberals' are the most benevolently arrogant among us.
Furthermore, they are also the least likely to be able to distinguish between the force of an idea and the idea of force. They don't even want to hear it.

Liberty, tolerance and charity all have a voluntary nature. I am a devout advocate for the voluntary. A modern liberal in defined by their opposition to liberty, charity and tolerance. A liberal is an advocate for the mandatory.

My threads and posts are easy to find on the subjects of abortion and homosexuality. I recommend them. They are consistent with everything I've written here.

 

I only had one encounter with a liberal relative this Christmas, but by the time me and her sister got thru counseling her, she admitted she really didn't even know who Wendy Davis is... she just liked her on FB 'cuz she's a female running for gov and her g/f liked her.

Good grief. That's how we got Obama.

Advice on dealing with liberal relatives. Pretty funny... and true. Especially the Transformer analogy.

[video=youtube;gIhh0WkamgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIhh0WkamgQ[/video]​

 

Yeahh, except for what is actually being debated the right is for far more freedom than the left, it's only on the things actually being decided where they want to clamp down and dictate what people must do.
But in fantasy land, the left are the real authoritarians, demanding that people turn in their guns and be forced into gay marriage, although in reality it's that right that just wants to trim back womens right to decide what happens to their bodies, and just keep a check on what people do in their bedrooms.

 

Well, we disagree with that!
If someone keeps people from CHOOSING whether or not to carry a fetus to term. . .that is FORCING people who do NOT want to have a child to carry that unwanted fetus for 9 months, and then to raise it (without much support from the "pro-life community" to raise that child). That in my book is IMPOSING their will on women. While, in the other hand, the liberals do not want to IMPOSE abortion on anyone. . . but they leave the CHOICE on every individual woman.

Same thing applies to gay rights. Liberals do not want to FORCE anyone to marry someone of the same sex, or to engage in sexual behavior or relationship with someone of the same sex, but they demand that that CHOICE be left to each individual. . .contrary to the RIGHT who wants to outcast people who choose not to engage in heterosexual relationships or, at the least, put them back "in the closet!"

Basically, it is the difference between giving people CHOICE or imposing one's values on everyone else!

 

Show me a liberal who wants to IMPOSE abortion on ANYONE who doesn't want it.
Show me a liberal who wants to IMPOSE gay marriage on ANYONE who doesn't want to marry a person of the same sex.
Show me a liberal who wants to IMPOSE birth control on ANYONE who is ready to have a child, or who prefers to leave it to "natural means" of birth control.
Show me a liberal who wants to IMPOSE a religion (or a non-religion) on ANYONE who wants to practice ANY religion of their choice, without pushing it in other people's face.

If you can do that. . .I might understand what you are saying.

 

Are you dead serious? Is that what you got out of that? Wow!

For the others reading;
There are handful of exeptions, a very few, that 'liberals' want voluntary, such as; abortion, drugs, etc. However, the difining characteistic of a 'liberal' is exactly their opposition to liberty, charity and tolerance in general.

 

Please show factual information showing that liberals are against liberty, charity and tolerance . . .go ahead. We are all waiting!

 

I am a liberal.

Even self-professed "liberals" in the US don't know what liberal means anymore. They're more properly called social democrats. But I guess the nuance of that term is too much for your average dumbass American to understand.

 

Liberty, charity and tolerance have a voluntary nature. Politically 'correct' speech, obamacare, wealth transfers all have a mandatory nature. Free enterprise, corporations and religion all have voluntary nature. Besides some very narrow aspects of sexuality and recreational drug use, liberals advocate consistently for the mandatory.

 

Hey what do you know, a perfect example of yet another American who doesn't know what liberal means.

Don't worry, you're not alone. In fact, I'm basically the lone voice of correctness in a sea of ignorance.

 

This is not true at all. I also know there is nothing liberal about the American left, other then their stance on gays and even then I am not so sure because they want discrimination laws probably AA soon, etc... the whole victim package.

 

Show me a leftist that doesn't want to impose a ponzi scheme style retirement system that takes about 13% from the people
Show me a leftist that doesn't want to take 40% from the people through force
Show me a leftist that will extend human rights throughout the human life cycle
Show me a leftist that will let people run their business without treating them as if they are guilty until proven innocent
Show me a leftist that is opposed to racial discrimination
Show me a leftist that is opposed to gender discrimination
Show me a leftist that will allow people to make decisions about their own personal healthcare and how it is financed
Show me a leftist that doesn't want to silence religious speech
Show me a leftist that will allow society to form its cultural institutions and define them
Show me a leftist that will allow a child to be educated - the most important thing to the development of a person- where they or their parents wish with the money that is being forcibly taxed from them for the rest of their lives
Show me a leftist that will allow a store owner and their potential employee negotiate terms of their arrangement as they see fit

 

Liberty is authority over and responsibility for self.

A 'liberal' SHOULD be one who advocates liberty; HOWEVER, in the US today, 'liberals' are defined by their opposition to liberty.
It's ironic; I know, but it is what it is.

We are not all unaware of the definition of a classical liberal. We were just over looking your not being able to get past your initial sophomoric observation. So let me spell it out for you, we are not disscussing clasical liberalism; we are discussing contemporary liberalism. We were all simply holding out hope that you could figure that out with enough context, but we were wrong.

 

Hooray I'm not alone.

The tally is up to two. I guess it's better than one.