What is a liberal?

I hear the word "liberal" being bandied around on this forum, usually pejoratively

What does the word "liberal" mean to you?

As far as the definition of liberalism is concerned, do you agree with any of the ideas expressed in the Wikipedia entry for Liberalism?.

 

A liberal is someone who thinks people are basically bad and most be controlled by the government. Conservatives think the government is basically bad and must be controlled by the people.

A liberal is someone who thinks everything you earn sheuld go to the government for wise decisions on spending. Conservatives think individuals should decide how to spend what they earn.

Conservatives think taxes are to fund the government. Liberals consider that a starting point but taxes continue for massive income redistribution and controlling behavior of citizens.

Conservatives are generous with their own money and liberals are generous with everyone else's money.

Liberals believe in rule of man and conservatives believe in rule of law.

Conservatives believe in individual freedom and liberals believe in individual conformity by edict.

 

patrick

I could not have said it better my self. It all boils down to the fact that liberals want to control the lives of other people.

 

Liberal [n]
A term used to lump together anyone who disagrees with an expressed opinion in any way so they can all be attacked/condemned/mocked/dismissed in one easy sweep. See also; conservative, leftist, rightist, progressive, capitalist...

 

A term that people use when the other side doesn't know what they're talking about and decides to use it as an insult because they've run out of arguments.

 

liberalism means different things in different places and times. american liberalism is distinct from french liberalism or japanese liberalism and it is certainly different from the liberalism of a mere two hundred years ago. maybe we should start with that wikipedia definition and compare it to the present state of american liberalism.

i suppose it depends on your definition of liberty and equality, but it would seem that today's american liberal has only the most skewed concept of these terms. can living in a society that abounds with often nonsensical and counterproductive regulation be considered liberty? american liberalism seems to have decided that the over-regulation of the masses is the price we have to pay for a concept of equality that concentrates more on equal outcomes than equal opportunity. the notion that the products of the fruits of the labor of others, from the collected information that goes into education to the food, clothing and housing we all depend on, should only be paid for by those who operate their lives successfully is a philosophy peculiar to today's liberal. is this really equality or is it actually forcing the haves to care for the have-nots, regardless of their abilities or intentions? free and fair elections? only those who make their living off of the corruption of the state, the lifetime public "servants" and those they support through graft and favoritism, would object to the people having the major say as to their future. freedom of the press, religion and trade? who but someone intent on profiting from an ill-informed population, bereft of the right to believe as they wish and trade freely among themselves, would stand against these things? once again the answer is the denizens of a state with enhanced powers and those who depend on their corruption. oddly enough it is the modern liberal who insists on constantly adding to the powers of the state, giving them ever more power over the private sector and the individual. civil rights? who among us but those caught in some elitist mentality would deny the individual his self-determination? again we are faced with the statist/collectivist notions of the modern liberal. the philosophy that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual flies in the face of self-determination and the increasing importance of the all-powerful state, an entity from which all our rights flow and which may in turn demand that those rights be relinquished, is a constant threat to the sovereignty of the individual. we finally come to the most telling portion of our tale - private property. the truth is that the modern american liberal no longer even bothers to pay lip-service to this concept. for most, even the progressive tax system, a system that places the lion's share of the nation's upkeep on the shoulders of the wealthy and creates an underclass that is a permanent drain on the nation's finances, is not enough. they seek to punish wealth with ever more taxes and fees and to over-regulate the creation of new business, a blatant attempt to build a barrier that keeps new members from joining the rarefied realm of the rich. this is the great flaw of their collectivist philosophy, that it protects the poor by insulating them from the rigors poverty and creates an under-class that is comfortable with their state. that this is unsustainable is of little concern to their leaders. the management of redistribution creates a bureaucracy that thrives as the nation bleeds and their future is assured.

so is wikipedia's definition of liberalism an apt description of today's american liberal? hardly. the backbone of this movement is the tearing down of wealth, a cornerstone of modern society, in order to sustain a comfortable poverty. the history of this nation is one of being among the most conservative of western nations. the success of that conservatism has allowed us an unprecedented strength, a strength that has often supported our more liberal peer nations. our success has allowed these others to demand that we aid in their defense and their economic development and our hubris has led us to expend our strength in order to spread what we believed to be a creed that would lead others to the sort of freedoms which we enjoy. as we turn away from that conservative/individualist philosophy toward a more statist/collectivist one, we find that that strength can be fleeting.

 

^^ A good example for the OP on the complete and total lack of anything related to terms definition or reality in general.

As you can see with posters like this one, the term liberal to him is simply a bunch of strawmen created to ease his troubled mind.

I think PatrickT couldn't have exemplified and validated this any better with his post.

 

right, that's why they fight for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, abortion rights, decriminalization of marijuana, right of assisted suicide for the terminally ill, looser immigration laws, more voting rights.

 

though the trend to denigrate any opposition by labeling them dangerous extremists and to use the power of governmental bureaucracy to thwart the desire for conservative speech may lead us to believe that there is a severe limit to what they might consider acceptable speech.

with most of the msm securely in their pocket, it wouldn't seem they would have anything to fear from the press. however, the concerted efforts of this administration and the liberal establishment in general to marginalize the few outlets of conservative thought describe a nagging fear of any truth being publicized but their own "truth".

oh, this one's a goodie. the right of mothers to kill their unborn children, relieving them of any but the most cursory responsibility for their actions.

i happen to wholeheartedly agree with this one, but you might be surprised to find that there is a growing sentiment across the board for not just decriminalization but legalization. this ain't just a bunch of old hippies trying to get high any more. i do tend to wonder why the liberals at the highest level, the federal government, insist on continuing what is obviously an illogical prohibition.

while many, mostly religious, conservative may see this as an insult to the sanctity of life, this is another case where a growing sentiment among everyone sees this as a kindness and none of anyone else's business.

this is another good one. i'm sure that the millions of our nation's unemployed poor, struggling to find any job at all, will be thrilled to know that the country's pool of jobs for the unskilled and semi-skilled will have ten to twenty million more applicants and that their place on the government run plantation is secure. secure, that is, until the state has alienated the wealthy enough to force them away and discouraged the business community to the point where any other nation is preferable to the greedy bureaucrats here. then i wonder where the tax dollars will come from for all those handouts.

oh yes, you've saved the best for last. what better way to eliminate control than to allow the dead and the ineligible to vote, to allow incumbent cronies and operatives to vote early and vote often.

 

[/SUP]
Yeah, basically.

Republicans: "But that's classical liberalism, which we now call libertarianism. Modern liberalism is all about Satan and mind-control." Wanna bet?

- - - Updated - - -

When you say stuff like this, who are you trying to convince?

I'm a liberal and I don't believe any of those things.

 

You left out fighting for higher taxes, bigger and more intrusive government, illegal immigration, wars when it’s your guy in the WH, stomping out religious rights, stomping out gun rights, the ‘Fairness Doctrine (free speech when you agree with it), using government agencies to go after your political enemies…

 

​

 

Welcome to partisan politics.

 

Nice stereotype. I am a liberal and think people are basically good.

Another fine example of a stereotype. I am absolutely against the government taking everything one earns nor do I use words like "wise" in conjunction with the word "government" as that is an oxymoron.

You were doing good until you added the controlling bit. Talk of controlling behavior of citizens, we live in a society populated by a Christian moral majority that exerts a huge amount of peer pressure upon society to conform to ignorance based social norms such as men should have short hair and women should wear bras.

And pray tell who made those laws? God? If so then why is it that SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and not the Bible? Do you say America was founded upon Christian principles? If so then explain why abortion is legal, same sex marriage is sweeping the land, and pot is becoming legal?

You got that backwards. Conservatives represent the establishment which by its very nature is conformist. Liberalism represents progressive ideals which is more akin to freedom.

 

Please cite source of stated fact.

Do you assume that conservatives do not try to control others? Are you really that biased? Who is controlling who in the argument for/against same sex marriage? No matter which way the law goes one side will be left feeling controlled while the other will feel liberated.

Welcome to America.

 

Well, that's the impression I get

 

most of the liberals on this and other US oriented message boards aren't liberals at all--just class warfare democrats. It is a pathological condition--they cannot advocate for anything without wanting to punish someone else in the process--Damned old GOP, Damned old rich people, Damned old corporations, damned old <insert no a partisan democrat group here>

 

A non Jesus lover who has to find political correctness in everything.

 

Most liberals and leftists are Marxists who seek to tear down America's wealth and to turn America into a Marxist regime.

 

i get called a "liberal" if i disagree with a some of the more harder right people

 

A Liberal is someone who votes Democrat.

 

Liberalism as described in wiki is not what we mean when the word is flung on this forum. Just like American Conservatives are not the same as European Conservatives.

The progressive liberal ideology (the opposite ideology as the social conservative), is an ideology that places faith in a benign, all powerful and caring government taking care of its citizens. In order for government to be all powerful and sustaining---there has to be a vulnerable, miseducated, dependent population that depends on government. So the liberal ideology promotes dependence on government, and promotes victimhood .

Liberal progressive ideology doesn't value human life. Because it values self-gratification more. If a woman has five kids from five fathers and can't sustain herself---the liberal progressive ideology will note her as a victim and push for easier abortions and more welfare and free birth control for children.. Observers that suggest she not have so much casual sex with uncommitted men will be flogged as hateful by the liberal ideology.

Progressive Liberal ideology does not value our founders, our past great builders, the pioneers that treked across a dangerous land. It regret the founding of our country, and believes its foundation bad and in need of tearing down and rebuilding.. You will find a lot of hatred towards our history in the Progressive Liberal Ideology.

A weak nation---is more fair. The progressive liberal ideology will press fairness and will be unfair about it. Our country should be weaker. While other countries should be stronger. Our country uses so many resources...we must stop the economy and control the weath so that the world will be more fair.

And on a micro scale---if women can't be firemen because they aren't capable of passing the physical tests--- lower the standards to make it "fair".

Well...I can go on and on but you get the jest.

 

One sentence! None of the people that are against liberalism can describe it accurately for even a single sentence! They always have to turn it into some sort of caricatured boogeyman that bears zero resemblance to reality.

It should tell everyone the value of liberalism's detractors' opinions, that they can't go a single sentence without making stuff up.

 

Seemingly so yes. As one who opposes liberalism, in the american sense but certainly not in the European and Swedish sense, I'll have a try...

I'd say wikipedia got it right. Liberalism, as the name strongly suggests, is the ideology which values and seeks to achieve more freedom. Basically that's all there is to liberalism. But the complication arises with how you define freedom... The american political debate is actually a debate within liberalism. Between conservative, classical liberalism on the one hand, and between progressive social liberalism on the other. Both sides value freedom and wants more of it, but their understanding of freedom differs. And that difference in how the understand the concept of freedom ultimately stems from that they have two very different understandings of how humans are, but that's anotehr deep and long philosophical topic.. But in short, the right's understanding of freedom is basically the absence of coercion to limit your pre-existing options. But the left's understanding of freedom is to have the means to achieve your goals. That's two very different ideas, and it's no suprise they don't understand eachother so well when both use the same word for these two understandings.

No, it's just the reverse. The left views humans as basically good which is why they see so much potential in government. They believe good people in government can use the power of the government to make it good for everyone. Conservatives believe humans are basically bad and flawed, and won't trust people with too much power in government because they think it will be abused.

Exactly. Does the above fit in with your idea of how things work?