NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a query, Americans of course, as everyone knows (apart from some Democrats) tend to be narrow minded about other races/religions and other economic or social models. What my query is, is why? Why do Americans percieve the word Liberal to be a dirty word and use it as an insult in some cases?

The definition of Liberal clearly states:
"[n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties"

This, by all intensive purposes, would be perceived as a good way of thinking by anyone who had a degree of rationality about them. However, this is not the case in America, if your a Socialist? You are a 'commie'. Even though most of the people who throw this kind of indoctrinated popoganda around are poor themselves, and therefore the meaning of the word has been twisted by the propoganda system that is American Education.

How many people brought up during the Cold War have been indoctrinated into thinking anyone who believes workers should have basic rights through thier unions and that everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living is a 'commie'? We are reaping the reward of this propoganda, America internally has reached a social stalemate. Nobody wants to fund public services such as a Healthcare system free for all because they could be percieved as running against the 'glorius free system of laissez faire', or that anyone who believes in regulating business on the grounds of consumer rights or the environment is a 'pinko'. This is what you get when you indoctrinate your youth to believe that your system is the only way.

This is just a query, Americans of course, as everyone knows (apart from some Democrats) tend to be narrow minded about other races/religions and other economic or social models. What my query is, is why? Why do Americans percieve the word Liberal to be a dirty word and use it as an insult in some cases?

The definition of Liberal clearly states:
"[n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties"

This, by all intensive purposes, would be perceived as a good way of thinking by anyone who had a degree of rationality about them. However, this is not the case in America, if your a Socialist? You are a 'commie'. Even though most of the people who throw this kind of indoctrinated popoganda around are poor themselves, and therefore the meaning of the word has been twisted by the propoganda system that is American Education.

How many people brought up during the Cold War have been indoctrinated into thinking anyone who believes workers should have basic rights through thier unions and that everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living is a 'commie'? We are reaping the reward of this propoganda, America internally has reached a social stalemate. Nobody wants to fund public services such as a Healthcare system free for all because they could be percieved as running against the 'glorius free system of laissez faire', or that anyone who believes in regulating business on the grounds of consumer rights or the environment is a 'pinko'. This is what you get when you indoctrinate your youth to believe that your system is the only way.


Excellent matey. Propaganda through education and the media.

Most americans aren't insensitive, or intolerant or ultra right wing. They just think they are....

I'm an American socalist. While I think America could use a hell of a lot of reform to fix quite a few problems, I don't see it as bad. (This leads into the American- Anti-American debate which I don't feel like going into)

But, by no means is America a laissez-faire system. That happened in the 20s and it pretty much brought about a crash because of unregulated business. So then, Americans decided more government was better.

But, by no means is America a laissez-faire system. That happened in the 20s and it pretty much brought about a crash because of unregulated business. So then, Americans decided more government was better.

But it is something the far right in the Republicans want to bring back. They still believe an Industry can 'self-regulate' - thats how stupid they are. :)

I know. Americans have this phobia of socialism that I can't comprehend despite the fact that I once had it as well.

Its the education system and the media, it brings people up to believe that Corporations always have people's best interests at heart. Which of course is rubbish.

This is just a query, Americans of course, as everyone knows (apart from some Democrats) tend to be narrow minded about other races/religions and other economic or social models. What my query is, is why? Why do Americans percieve the word Liberal to be a dirty word and use it as an insult in some cases?

The definition of Liberal clearly states:
"[n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties"

This, by all intensive purposes, would be perceived as a good way of thinking by anyone who had a degree of rationality about them. However, this is not the case in America, if your a Socialist? You are a 'commie'. Even though most of the people who throw this kind of indoctrinated popoganda around are poor themselves, and therefore the meaning of the word has been twisted by the propoganda system that is American Education.

How many people brought up during the Cold War have been indoctrinated into thinking anyone who believes workers should have basic rights through thier unions and that everyone should be entitled to a basic standard of living is a 'commie'? We are reaping the reward of this propoganda, America internally has reached a social stalemate. Nobody wants to fund public services such as a Healthcare system free for all because they could be percieved as running against the 'glorius free system of laissez faire', or that anyone who believes in regulating business on the grounds of consumer rights or the environment is a 'pinko'. This is what you get when you indoctrinate your youth to believe that your system is the only way.
I agree with your main point, but did you have so say it like that? You make so many assumptions, for someone who doesn't even live in America, and at times you come across as downright anti-American. (I'm not American, btw.)

It's absolutely unfair to say that most Americans (apart from some Democrats? what about the Greens and independents?) are narrow-minded about other races. Isn't the US one of the world's most multi-racial, multicultural societies?

But I agree with you when you express concern that "[some] Americans percieve the word Liberal to be a dirty word and use it as an insult in some cases".

Here "Liberal" means someone who stands for socialism and libertinism not really 19th century liberalism. As such, liberal has become a bad word. Americans tend to be more sceptical of government than most other places- especially because we tend to be ruled by economics rather than wishful thinking.
Hope that helped-

And one cannot also wonder why people have problems with the word "conservative" and use it as an insult. The defintion of conservative slearly states:

"One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics; - opposed to revolutionary or radical."

The thing is, usage is of either word (as opposed to definition from whatever dictionary) varies widely depending on the intent of the user. Those who use the word "liberal" in a derogatory manner would define the word to mean "a left wing extremist who is intent upon destroying individual liberties" which amusingly enough is almost defintion of conservative used by those who consider it an insult (a right wing extremist who is intent upon destroying individual liberties).

To point towards an answer to the rest of your post, I challenge you to identify the basic underlying assumptions and prove them valid. If someone doesn't share your underlying assumptions they will have different viewpoint of the propositions than you. The american education system has always sporatically emphasised the questioning of underlying assumptions, when those who learned to question them have done so, they have not always been able to find them valid.

Socialism or Communism whatever you call it its all crap. People who are unwilling to take care of themselves do not deserve to be wards of the state.
Take for example the welfare and unemployment abouses in this nation.
now I am not advocating abolition of all these programs, but I am advocating control on such. If someone needs help they only recieve it for a short period f time. The problem comes in when people turn it into a lifestyle and use the money to buy gold rims rather than self improvement.

Now often the debate of national healthcare comes up. HEY PINKOS LISTEN UP: its been a failure in every country that has tried it. Yes everyone has healthcare but there is no researched based anything.
A viable solution to this would be to allow companies to deduct premiums that are paid for employee benifits this would lead to more people having access to healthcare. Furthermore frivilous lawsuits need to be stopped. Lawyers just need to be shot. If it wasn't for lawyers insurance :home, life, health and auto all would b affordable

finally ill end with this in relation to your pinko commie crap:

Q: whats the difference between a communist and an anti-communist?
A: a communist reads Marxist Leninism, whereas an anti-communist understands it.

You sir, are an idiot.

Of course, and on top of that, a troll. If he says socialism is a failure, he hasn't been out much. I don't recall the collective European Union being a failure.

I believe I'm safe to assume that that person is a right-wing American?

I know. Americans have this phobia of socialism that I can't comprehend despite the fact that I once had it as well.

Well, given that we're all brought up with the idea that we fought a nearly 50 year 'war' against the gains of socialism, it isn't hard to imagine the reaction.

I believe I'm safe to assume that that person is a right-wing American?

Probably a Republican, the EU is socialist and the biggest Economy in the World.

"The definition of a conservative is someone who wants to maintian existing sin, whilst the definition of a liberal is someone who wants to change them for new ones."

It's absolutely unfair to say that most Americans (apart from some Democrats? what about the Greens and independents?) are narrow-minded about other races. Isn't the US one of the world's most multi-racial, multicultural societies?

Multi-racial, perhaps, but multicultural? What percentage of white Americans speak any language other than English? Multicultural means integrated diversity, is that what there is in the States? Or is there integration on the basis of conformity?

I'm not flaming here, I'm from Ireland, a scarily monocultural and now virulently racist country, but I live in London, which is generally regarded as the most multicultural city in the world.

I wouldn't call Americans narrow-minded, but I would say that US culture is incredibly self-obsessed and insular. The ethnic and racial diversity of the States has led to an attempt to create a post-ethnic society, where, rather than celebrate the richness of diversity, there has been a concerted effort to create undifferentiated consumers.

Vas.

Multi-racial, perhaps, but multicultural? What percentage of white Americans speak any language other than English? Multicultural means integrated diversity, is that what there is in the States? Or is there integration on the basis of conformity?

I'm not flaming here, I'm from Ireland, a scarily monocultural and now virulently racist country, but I live in London, which is generally regarded as the most multicultural city in the world.

I wouldn't call Americans narrow-minded, but I would say that US culture is incredibly self-obsessed and insular. The ethnic and racial diversity of the States has led to an attempt to create a post-ethnic society, where, rather than celebrate the richness of diversity, there has been a concerted effort to create undifferentiated consumers.

Vas.
I am Irish too. I live in Dublin. I agree that our society is too racist. One of the things I admire about the USA is the successful integration of immigrants. Ireland and most European countries (especially France) fail miserably at this.

Let me explain. In America people are proud of both the United States and their original ethnic background. You have Irish-Americans, Arab-Americans, and so on. This is a great thing. Look at France on the other hand, another country that has experienced huge levels of immigration. In the poor ghettos where Arabs live, even second and third-generation immigrants consider themselves Arabs, and not really French so much.

In America, different cultures are integrated sufficiently as to feel a part of mainstream society, but not so much as to become the same as the rest of it. Why do you think that America has been the world's #1 powerhouse of art, music and culture in general for the past 70 years?

In America, different cultures are integrated sufficiently as to feel a part of mainstream society, but not so much as to become the same as the rest of it. Why do you think that America has been the world's #1 powerhouse of art, music and culture in general for the past 70 years?

The lowest common denominator. The aspects of American culture that dominate tend to be McDonalds, Britney, Hollywood. This is not to deny the great things to come from the US (Tom Waits, David Lynch), but American popular culture is designed to appeal across the board in the States, so it works just as well beyond its borders.

I also think you're overstating the difference between France and the US. There is a considerable level of integration in France, and there are huge pockets of excluded minorities in the US. The civil rights movement was only thirty odd years ago, there are huge populations of hispanics who consider themselves to be of their native country and not American (and are often illegal).

And look at London (this is less true in the rest of the UK) - it is as multicultural and integated as you can possibly get, with a variety of cultures and languages living side-by-side.

Vas.

The lowest common denominator. The aspects of American culture that dominate tend to be McDonalds, Britney, Hollywood. This is not to deny the great things to come from the US (Tom Waits, David Lynch), but American popular culture is designed to appeal across the board in the States, so it works just as well beyond its borders.
I was actually thinking about people like Georgia O'Keeffe, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Miles Davis, Samuel Barber, Aaron Copeland, The Velvet Underground, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese and so on. Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Jazz and Rock all started there. I don't consider McDonalds to be culture at all, that's just a corporation, Britney is just a passing fad and Hollywood is not all bad.

Socialism or Communism whatever you call it its all crap. People who are unwilling to take care of themselves do not deserve to be wards of the state.
Take for example the welfare and unemployment abouses in this nation.
now I am not advocating abolition of all these programs, but I am advocating control on such. If someone needs help they only recieve it for a short period f time. The problem comes in when people turn it into a lifestyle and use the money to buy gold rims rather than self improvement.

Now often the debate of national healthcare comes up. HEY PINKOS LISTEN UP: its been a failure in every country that has tried it. Yes everyone has healthcare but there is no researched based anything.
A viable solution to this would be to allow companies to deduct premiums that are paid for employee benifits this would lead to more people having access to healthcare. Furthermore frivilous lawsuits need to be stopped. Lawyers just need to be shot. If it wasn't for lawyers insurance :home, life, health and auto all would b affordable

finally ill end with this in relation to your pinko commie crap:

Q: whats the difference between a communist and an anti-communist?
A: a communist reads Marxist Leninism, whereas an anti-communist understands it.

Unfortunately, there always be those who abuse the system. You obviously don't seem too worried about corporations abusing their workkers.

And I do believe Socialism is not only working in the EU, but in Denmark, which ios a democratic Socialism. If I am wrong, please correct me.

How does an anti-communist (and communism is not the same as Socialism) understand Communism better than a communist/

I was actually thinking about people like Georgia O'Keeffe, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Miles Davis, Samuel Barber, Aaron Copeland, The Velvet Underground, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese and so on. Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Jazz and Rock all started there.

These are isolated examples, which can easily be matched by Irish examples such as U2, the Virgin Prunes, Joyce, Yeats and so on and so forth. But these are not the dominant forces of "American" culture (The Velvet Underground included one Welsh man and a German woman by the way).

There are some basic reasons US culture has come to dominate, the first is that which I've already pointed out, the fact that most of it is lowest common denominator stuff. Every now and then, this allows something of quality to be made - like Spelling producing Twin Peaks - but most of it is Friends and not 6 Feet Under.

The other fundamental factor is that the US is, itself, the main market. Once a film has opened in the States, it's news everywhere, it builds power and coverage in the States and is a juggernaut by the time it's released elsewhere. That's simply the logistics of being so big.

American culture, quite simply, doesn't point to a particularly multicultural society. What was the last Spanish-language blockbuster?

Vas.

But it is something the far right in the Republicans want to bring back. They still believe an Industry can 'self-regulate' - thats how stupid they are. :)

Actually, Republicans don't want laissez-faire. Most Republicans are not libertarian minded. Most would prefer that the U.S. govt continue to support corporations with subsides & tax incentives. In this regard they are as socialistic as the Democratic Party. The GOP knows perfectly well that laissez-faire is GREAT for the corporations themselves but would be disasterous for the public at large. Regardless though, it will be cold, snowing day in Hawaii before the GOP terminates its funding of American corporations, both on U.S. soil and abroad.

Literally, the GOP wants socialism for the wealthy, and overregulated/tax laden capitalism for the rest of society -- let the American worker be fucked.

Liberal isn't a dirty word.

Communist is.

See, our constitution guarantees the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in there is a right to the wage of others.

well considering that you would have to have quite a few amendments to the united states constitution to make socialism constitutional in the first place...

<i>We have been able to show why the socialist economy is impracticable: not because men are morally too base, but because the problems that a socialist order would have to solve present insuperable intellectual difficulties. The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, not moral, incapacity. Socialism could not achieve its end, because a socialist economy could not calculate value. Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, could not form a socialistic community.</i>

It's because many Americans commonly mistake socialism for communism. There's more socialism in America than most of my fellow Americans realize.

I won't get into the capitalism/socialism/anti-Americanism argument that's going on, but don't you think that you just might be narrow-minded and prejudiced if you're calling Americans narrow-minded and prejudiced?

I frankly don't care what liberal means in Websters or the American Heritage dictionary. I care about John Kerry's economic policies - higher taxes, regulation of business, stiffling corporation and consumer alike. Please don't flame me. That's my opinion...I'm allowed to have it as much as you're allowed to have yours.

I won't get into the capitalism/socialism/anti-Americanism argument that's going on, but don't you think that you just might be narrow-minded and prejudiced if you're calling Americans narrow-minded and prejudiced?

I frankly don't care what liberal means in Websters or the American Heritage dictionary. I care about John Kerry's economic policies - higher taxes, regulation of business, stiffling corporation and consumer alike. Please don't flame me. That's my opinion...I'm allowed to have it as much as you're allowed to have yours.

Too bad you're probably going to get flamed anyway. You seem like a reasonable person.

<i>We have been able to show why the socialist economy is impracticable: not because men are morally too base, but because the problems that a socialist order would have to solve present insuperable intellectual difficulties. The impracticability of Socialism is the result of intellectual, not moral, incapacity. Socialism could not achieve its end, because a socialist economy could not calculate value. Even angels, if they were endowed only with human reason, could not form a socialistic community.</i>

Why then, has socialism suceeded in making the EU the largest economy in the world, but with great public services and a big social security net?

I know. Americans have this phobia of socialism that I can't comprehend despite the fact that I once had it as well.

Letila once feared socialism!? This I gotta hear!

I wouldn't call Americans narrow-minded, but I would say that US culture is incredibly self-obsessed and insular. The ethnic and racial diversity of the States has led to an attempt to create a post-ethnic society, where, rather than celebrate the richness of diversity, there has been a concerted effort to create undifferentiated consumers.

American society certainly is that way, very inward-looking. I think it is the combined result of our history, location, and position in the world. We have traditionally been isolationist; it was only at the end of WWII that we changed this policy. The fact that America is located far from the countries of Europe and Asia causes us to think and learn about them little, except when forced to do so. And, as everyone here knows and rails about, we think America's "where it's at" and don't bother to discover new cultures because comared to us, they "don't matter". I don't think this is right, but it's an unfortunate fact.

Actually, Republicans don't want laissez-faire. Most Republicans are not libertarian minded.

They sure aren't. They claim to be for limiting government and giving people personal freedoms (right to bear arms, etc.), but in practice it seems they just want to divert government spending to defense and prohibit people from doing what they disagree with. Not libertarian at all. (My parents are Republican, so I don't usually engage in flaming them. There are good Republicans out there, contrary to popular belief.)

See, our constitution guarantees the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in there is a right to the wage of others.

And there is a quarantee that the powerful can oppress the weak?

It's because many Americans commonly mistake socialism for communism. There's more socialism in America than most of my fellow Americans realize.

There definitely is. I always wonder about those who bash socialism, and then eagerly proceed to collect their SOCIAL (hmm, wonder why they used that word?) Security checks... but to each their own...

An unregulated economy, with no safety net, spells disaster. It doesn't even maintain itself as long as a "Communist" state.

Anyway, it was the Cold War, and our government's response to it, that turned America so deeply away from socialism. After it was "won", most Americans chalked that up as another reason to view collectivist economic systems with disgust. "It obviously doesn't work! we say.

As Moobyworld said, "The definition of a conservative is someone who wants to maintian existing sin, whilst the definition of a liberal is someone who wants to change them for new ones". Assuming I understand him correctly, there is ultimately only one difference between conservative and liberal, between individualist and collectivist: the problems inherent in each. In individualist conservatism, the problems stem from the powerful taking advantage of the weak. Not all the powerful do this, but the few who do mess it up for everyone. In collectivist liberalism, the problems stem from the lazy and greedy taking advantage of the productive and generous. Again, not all are lazy or greedy, but the few who are wreck the system. This is why both "anarcho-capitalism" and "anarcho-communism" alone are doomed to failure. The system that incorporates the best elements of both is the one that works, which is why I'm a democratic socialist...