NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't liberalism conservative?

My view on that is that our western society is liberal since close to 200 years now.
Separation of church and state, feminism, free market, and all that define liberalism (unless you don't agree on the definition) is already there, isn't it?
We have gender equal rights, the church does not have anything to do with the government (yes, I know that some out-dated politicians want it back, but unless we have it their way, we still have it)
In which way do you think it is progressive?

I'm not arguing anything like liberalism vs republicanism at all (those are out-dated debates in my opinion), but about the fact that liberalism is, in my opinion, conservative.

Shouldn't the left look at the future and look at what more we can have instead of what we shouldn't loose?
Is there a left in the liberal/republican debate? Or aren't they just arguing over how much right society should be? Do you think there is something progressive in this debate?

Tell me what's your point of view please. And thank you for keeping civil manners.

You're absolutely right. The liberal establishment is actually full of conservatives, and the relatively new Republican bloc has been behaviourally very liberal. The way 'liberal' stations like NPR and CBS do news is the same old way they've always done it. Whereas 'conservative' stations like Fox News and talk radio are more like sports channels, and don't have many traditional behaviours associated with them.

The only ways in which the political blocs are actually who they claim to be is in their political agenda. And since politicians usually just go with what will get them votes, that in and of itself isn't even all that important.

You make an interesting point, and a lot of what gets argued about around here and elsewhere is based on the looseness with the way we use language. One of the things I constantly deal with in my line of work--I'm a writer and a college instructor--is the use of language, and especially the importance of concrete, definable terms.

Your original question reminds me of something I heard Al Sharpton say during the primaries last year--that the Democrats were conservative because they were trying to conserve the gains that had been made on women's rights, on civil rights, on gay rights, etc. The unsaid assumption was that the Republican party was, by comparison, regressive as opposed to conservative, that they suggested a rolling back of the gains that had been made already, which is what I think you're talking about here.

So what's left for progressives, as far as rights are concerned? Well, personally, I think we could stand to do a lot more work on race and sexual preference issues. The US still has a lot of second-class citizens, although the situation is not as apparent as it was 30 years ago. But you're right that a lot of our energy is taken up in holding onto the gains we've made. And frankly, we're losing ground in some places, largely in the separation of church and state.

You asked in the thread title what it means to be liberal. In the case of separation of church and state, it means this to me--the state doesn't attempt to tell my church what to teach as far as doctrine is concerned, and doesn't discriminate against me or for me in terms of policy, and in return, my church doesn't try to inflict its worldview on government and on my fellow citizens. It's a fair trade, as far as I'm concerned.

The only ways in which the political blocs are actually who they claim to be is in their political agenda. And since politicians usually just go with what will get them votes, that in and of itself isn't even all that important.
But is there anything progressive in any of those two parties' politics?

My views on liberalism and conservatism at their best:

Liberalism idealistic, it is conserned with individual people and improving the lives of everyone. Liberalism says, "We can do better," and "Let's change these things to make them better."

Conservatism is concerned with whether something is practical. It calls for individual responcibility. Conservatism says, "This thing we have is wonderful, we need to preserve it." and "It is important to change only what needs to be changed not that is already good."

Ideally Liberalism and Conservatism interact with each other setting up a check so we move forward making improvements but keeping what is good. Ideally it creates a government that cares for it's people but realizes the extent of it's limitations.

Of course this is each at it's finest which, sadly, seems to be lacking today.

I don’t think were on the same page here. Liberals have much different policies than conservatives do. For instance liberals as a generally worry more about the home than they do over seas and conservatives tend to be more interested in foreign affairs than liberals do. Conservatives also try to influence society on some level such as Christianity, pro life, and being against abortion. Where liberals don’t want the government involved in such things and believe that they are a private matter. Many conservatives are very involved in getting the churches on their side in debates like abortion, with people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, where the liberals will go straight to the people in a "grassroots" effort as they call it. There are similarities between the two, but there stances on issues are nothing a like.

I think better terms are progessive and reactionary. The "conservatives" might indeed want to change the way things are, but they want to go back to what they claim was a "simpler time". They want to roll back such things as women's rights, church-state separation, gay rights, minority rights, miniimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc. (yes, I realize that not all conservatives might want all these things, don't bitch at me for generalizing)
Progressives want not to maintain the staus quo so much as build upon the progress already made to improve economic and social justice.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Thank you The Nazz. I was looking for this word. Are the Liberals Conservative and the Republicans Regresive?
Is there something progressive in either and what is it?

Isn't liberalism conservative?

My view on that is that our western society is liberal since close to 200 years now.
Separation of church and state, feminism, free market, and all that define liberalism (unless you don't agree on the definition) is already there, isn't it?
We have gender equal rights, the church does not have anything to do with the government (yes, I know that some out-dated politicians want it back, but unless we have it their way, we still have it)
In which way do you think it is progressive?

I'm not arguing anything like liberalism vs republicanism at all (those are out-dated debates in my opinion), but about the fact that liberalism is, in my opinion, conservative.

Shouldn't the left look at the future and look at what more we can have instead of what we shouldn't loose?
Is there a left in the liberal/republican debate? Or aren't they just arguing over how much right society should be? Do you think there is something progressive in this debate?

Tell me what's your point of view please. And thank you for keeping civil manners.

Exactly. That's the problem with using words like 'liberal' and 'conservative.' Depending on the time period, depending on the country, and depending on the issue, those words can and do mean completely different things. They're imprecise and fairly subjective terms and I prefer not to use them.

In 19th century America 'liberalism' resembled something much closer to the Republican Party of today (and the Republican Party of Lincoln) or just mainstream American Democrats and Republicans: support for the free market, industrialization, progress, belief in natural rights, and free labor, for example. 'Conservative' generally meant a person opposed to classically liberal ideas - maybe a monarchist, an upholder of the institution of slavery or someone who opposed the tide of industrialization and progress. Nowadays we still have 'conservatives' and liberals' but the meanings don't resemble the 18th or even 19th century definitions at all. That's why saying a 'conservative' of today is closer to a 'conservative' of the 19th century is just ridiculous for so many reasons. Americans generally are descendants of classical liberalism, not 18th and 19th century 'conservatism' (philosophers like Burke), so conservative isn't really an accurate or useful political term at all. And if conservative just means 'conserve,' then, as you've pointed out, it's still not accurate because conservatives advocate for quite a bit of change.

I use words like authoritarian, populist, libertarian, and left-wing and right-wing to indicate economic leanings.

I think better terms are progessive and reactionary. The "conservatives" might indeed want to change the way things are, but they want to go back to what they claim was a "simpler time". They want to roll back such things as women's rights, church-state separation, gay rights, minority rights, miniimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc. (yes, I realize that not all conservatives might want all these things, don't bitch at me for generalizing)
Progressives want not to maintain the staus quo so much as build upon the progress already made to improve economic and social justice.


Your explanation's problematic. You assume that all the issues you raised--separation of church and state, minimum wage laws, gay rights, and minority rights, for example--are 'progressive' and 'forward thinking.' Progressive suggests something linear and uni-directional. Is it possible that the issues you listed aren't "progressive" but rather just "different" than what was? Also, you are seriously stereotyping modern-day conservatives. Conservatives aren't opposed to women's rights. When's the last time you heard a Republican say they want to overturn the 19th Amendment or make it illegal for women to own property? You assume something when you say "women's rights," don't you? You mean abortion, maternity leave maybe, and the morning-after pill, perhaps. They're arguably not necessary components of women's rights and conservatives don't necessarily oppose them because they are about women's rights.

Again, you assume 'economic' and 'social justice' are progressive concepts when there's nothing inherently progressive about them. In the 19th century you would have been closer to a monarchist or a feudalist who hated the tide of capitalist and industrial progress and wanted society to return something more orderly - a society in which its members provided for one another. You reject the unequal structure of feudalism, I know, but do you see my point? You would have been anti-progress then and now you're asserting yourself as pro-progress, when you haven't taken the time to actually define and explain what progress means. I don't even oppose a lot of the issues you raised, although I do have different takes on them. I just question your assumptions about what conservative and liberal and progressive really mean.

You mean "classical liberal".

And yes, most Republicans nowadays (the ones refered to by the ignorati as "neocons") are what would be considered in the past top be "liberals"- the intellectual heirs of Paine, Voltaire, Lincoln, Jefferson, and others whose philosophy can be (over)simplified to mean "Leave me alone, I can take care of myself. Protect those who cannot protect themselves. Take responcibility for your own actions. Have faith in a Higher Power if that's your thing but don't get too noisy about it. The only legitimate excuse for a government is to repair the roads, deliver the mail, and shoot ists (although they didn't call them % ists" back then, they called them "brigands" or "bandits" or "pirates" or, in extreme cases, "the king of England")."

Thats it.

Anyone who espouses lots of legislation- anyone who espouses centralizing power (usually in their own hands)- are not actually "conservatives". They can call themselves "Progressives" or "The Religious Right", but their all the same- totalitarians in a democracy.

Your explanation's problematic. You assume that all the issues you raised--separation of church and state, minimum wage laws, gay rights, and minority rights, for example--are 'progressive' and 'forward thinking.' Progressive suggests something linear and uni-directional. Is it possible that the issues you listed aren't "progressive" but rather just "different" than what was? Also, you are seriously stereotyping modern-day conservatives. Conservatives aren't opposed to women's rights. When's the last time you heard a Republican say they want to overturn the 19th Amendment or make it illegal for women to own property? You assume something when you say "women's rights," don't you? You mean abortion, maternity leave maybe, and the morning-after pill, perhaps. They're arguably not necessary components of women's rights and conservatives don't necessarily oppose them because they are about women's rights.

Again, you assume 'economic' and 'social justice' are progressive concepts when there's nothing inherently progressive about them. In the 19th century you would have been closer to a monarchist or a feudalist who hated the tide of capitalist and industrial progress and wanted society to return something more orderly - a society in which its members provided for one another. You reject the unequal structure of feudalism, I know, but do you see my point? You would have been anti-progress then and now you're asserting yourself as pro-progress, when you haven't taken the time to actually define and explain what progress means. I don't even oppose a lot of the issues you raised, although I do have different takes on them. I just question your assumptions about what conservative and liberal and progressive really mean.


If I didn't speak clearly enough, I apologize, but don't presume to tell me what I am or am not assuming.

Your explanation's problematic. You assume that all the issues you raised--separation of church and state, minimum wage laws, gay rights, and minority rights, for example--are 'progressive' and 'forward thinking.' Progressive suggests something linear and uni-directional. Is it possible that the issues you listed aren't "progressive" but rather just "different" than what was? Also, you are seriously stereotyping modern-day conservatives. Conservatives aren't opposed to women's rights. When's the last time you heard a Republican say they want to overturn the 19th Amendment or make it illegal for women to own property? You assume something when you say "women's rights," don't you? You mean abortion, maternity leave maybe, and the morning-after pill, perhaps. They're arguably not necessary components of women's rights and conservatives don't necessarily oppose them because they are about women's rights.

Again, you assume 'economic' and 'social justice' are progressive concepts when there's nothing inherently progressive about them. In the 19th century you would have been closer to a monarchist or a feudalist who hated the tide of capitalist and industrial progress and wanted society to return something more orderly - a society in which its members provided for one another. You reject the unequal structure of feudalism, I know, but do you see my point? You would have been anti-progress then and now you're asserting yourself as pro-progress, when you haven't taken the time to actually define and explain what progress means. I don't even oppose a lot of the issues you raised, although I do have different takes on them. I just question your assumptions about what conservative and liberal and progressive really mean.
That is interesting.
If I understand correctly, you assume that progress is relative to your point of view, that social justice is not necessarily a progress, that the feudal system is not necessarily inferior, do I get you right?
No, I don't think I get you right. I believe you mean that we know that there has been progress in the past, but we don't know what will be a progress for the future? Is that what you mean?

If I didn't speak clearly enough, I apologize, but don't presume to tell me what I am or am not assuming.

You have to be assuming in order for your argument to make sense. Either progressive is an absolute term (in which case, how do you explain that progressivism didn't always mean economic and social justice and that you would have been considered anti-progress in the 19th century?) or it's a subjective term that changes depending on the time period, region, and issue. If it's the latter, then 'conservative' and 'liberal' and 'progressive' aren't very useful terms because they don't pinpoint anything specific. Opposing minimum wage laws wouldn't be anti-progressive so much as anti-"what this guy wants to do."

That is interesting.
If I understand correctly, you assume that progress is relative to your point of view, that social justice is not necessarily a progress, that the feudal system is not necessarily inferior, do I get you right?
No, I think I don't. I believe you mean that we know that therre has been progress in the past, but we don't know what will be a progress for the future? Is that what you mean?

I'm not making a claim either way. I do mind when people who would have been anti-progress a century ago are now telling me that because I don't support the oppressive use of the state to enact my social engineering policies, I'm a "conservative." I just wanted the other poster to admit he or she makes certain assumptions about what's "progressive." Turning back the clock's also a difficult and subjective phrase. Turning back the clock to what point? In some ways, modern "progressives" want to turn back the clock to a time before industrialization. Does that mean modern progressives are "conservatives"? Yeah, see, I don't know. Rather than use terms that are subjective and phrases that are useless, I'd rather pin down more absolute and universal concepts like authoritarianism in order to narrow down an ideology.

*Edit: I don't mind that individuals call themselves Progressives. I do mind when they assume that because they're called Progressive, that theirs is the only potentially progressive ideology and that everybody else just wants to go back to more traditional times. What god or entity declared that minimum wage laws are THE wave of the future and ALWAYS progressive? Yeah, sure, there didn't use to be minimum wage laws, but that's not necessarily a sign of progress, only that a law changed.

You have to be assuming in order for your argument to make sense. Either progressive is an absolute term (in which case, how do you explain that progressivism didn't always mean economic and social justice and that you would have been considered anti-progress in the 19th century?) or it's a subjective term that changes depending on the time period, region, and issue. If it's the latter, then 'conservative' and 'liberal' and 'progressive' aren't very useful terms because they don't pinpoint anything specific. Opposing minimum wage laws wouldn't be anti-progressive so much as anti-"what this guy wants to do."
Here is the way I see it.
I believe progress involves a vision. And a vision is relative to your point of view.
So, either you lack a vision, in which case you are conservative, either you have a vision for the future, in which way you are progressive, or your vision is out of time, in which way you you are regressive and may want it back to the point where your vision will be implementable.
That's just my point of view, but I consider myself a progressive, so I may be horribly biased.

Here is the way I see it.
I believe progress involves a vision. And a vision is relative to your point of view.
So, either you lack a vision, in which case you are conservative, either you have a vision for the future, in which way you are progressive, or your vision is out of time, in which way you you are regressive and may want it back to the point where your vision will be implementable.
That's just my point of view, but I consider myself a progressive, so I may be horribly biased.

But modern-day conservatives do have a vision. See, government doesn't have to hurls itself forward and change constantly and never, ever reverse a policy to have a vision of the future. Not all change is good change, which is what many progressives seem to think. I concern myself with the actual vision, not whether the vision's old or new or contains elements of the old and elements of the new. Modern progressives draw on historical ideas, as do modern conservatives. It's just impossible not to be a combination of new and old ideas. I analyze the vision itself--is it authoritarian? does it promote liberty?--rather than worry if it's brand-spankin' new. I don't care if conservatives want to go back to traditional times, only that they're right about what they advocate. I figure that they are right about some things, just like some modern "liberal" ideas.

I'm not making a claim either way. I do mind when people who would have been anti-progress a century ago are now telling me that because I don't support the oppressive use of the state to enact my social engineering policies, I'm a "conservative." I just wanted the other poster to admit he or she makes certain assumptions about what's "progressive." Turning back the clock's also a difficult and subjective phrase. Turning back the clock to what point? In some ways, modern "progressives" want to turn back the clock to a time before industrialization. Does that mean modern progressives are "conservatives"? Yeah, see, I don't know. Rather than use terms that are subjective and phrases that are useless, I'd rather pin down more absolute and universal concepts like authoritarianism in order to narrow down an ideology.

*Edit: I don't mind that individuals call themselves Progressives. I do mind when they assume that because they're called Progressive, that theirs is the only potentially progressive ideology and that everybody else just wants to go back to more traditional times. What god or entity declared that minimum wage laws are THE wave of the future and ALWAYS progressive? Yeah, sure, there didn't use to be minimum wage laws, but that's not necessarily a sign of progress, only that a law changed.
If I may, that is exactly the point of the thread. Minimum wage laws aren't progressive, are they? At least in the western world, we have them, haven't we?
Minimum wage is conservative. Scrapping them is regressive, unless you consider minimum wage laws to be just a step in a path to something higher and more beautiful... In this case, you are progressive. But if you think that minimum wages are bad, and that they had it better before the minimum wage were implemented, then you are regressive.
Does it make sense?

But modern-day conservatives do have a vision. See, government doesn't have to hurls itself forward and change constantly and never, ever reverse a policy to have a vision of the future. Not all change is good change, which is what many progressives seem to think. I concern myself with the actual vision, not whether the vision's old or new or contains elements of the old and elements of the new. Modern progressives draw on historical ideas, as do modern conservatives. It's just impossible not to be a combination of new and old ideas. I analyze the vision itself--is it authoritarian? does it promote liberty?--rather than worry if it's brand-spankin' new. I don't care if conservatives want to go back to traditional times, only that they're right about what they advocate. I figure that they are right about some things, just like some modern "liberal" ideas.
I follow you, but if your vision is not a vision of the future, isn't it a regressive vision? For example, if you think minimum wages were a bad idea from the start, and that you have a vision of it like it was before the minimum wages, it is regressive, since we have the minimum wages right now (Unless, you have a vision that goes beyond the scrapping of the minimum wages and something higher than that in mind), aren't you?

I have the impression that american politics are stuck in an out-dated debate and lacks a vision for the future.
Don't you think that the political establishment has taken roots so deep that they reach the other side of the earth? Don't they spread their political correctness, calling any vision extremist? Don't you feel frustrated when they say this is the end of history and that we have it all?
What's you vision?

The people who most often deem liberalism and conservatism to be mutually exclusive are populists and reactionaries, people who write for and read the Sun and the Daily Mail. Traditionally, conservatives were seen to advocate slow, gradual change and avoid radical change, viewing tradition as an essential aspect of human nature. Liberals conversely believed every individual was entitled to their rights and that tradition and archaic moral strictures ought not to stand in their way, in that sense conservatives often tend to be more pragmatic while liberals were more idealistic. In a way, that model is still relevant today, but in the last 25 or so years, conservatives have been far more eager to embrace a radicalism of their own with the neoliberalism of Thatcher and Reagan. Some might argue that this was self-defeating but at the time both Britain and America (the former more than the latter) were experiencing economic crises and free trade appeared at the time to be risky but only way to quickly get the economy growing once more, therefore it can be argued that free trade was an act of "common sense" and thus conservative by nature. Some conservatives and libertarians identify themselves as classic liberals but modern liberals reject excessive market liberalism of modern day conservatives and libertarians because its liability to create monopolies and cause unemployment and recession aswell as the absence of health & safety regulations in the case of extreme libertarianism undermines the egalitarian ideals of classic liberalism. From a liberal standpoint, it's also easy to accuse the current system of government in Britain and American of being too authoritarian to be democratic, as a democracy in principle ought not to allow tyranny by majority rule (as has been seen with the gay marriage ban in America) or the withdrawal of a right as basic as that to a fair trial.

Isn't liberalism conservative?

My view on that is that our western society is liberal since close to 200 years now.
Separation of church and state, feminism, free market, and all that define liberalism (unless you don't agree on the definition) is already there, isn't it?
We have gender equal rights, the church does not have anything to do with the government (yes, I know that some out-dated politicians want it back, but unless we have it their way, we still have it)
In which way do you think it is progressive?

I'm not arguing anything like liberalism vs republicanism at all (those are out-dated debates in my opinion), but about the fact that liberalism is, in my opinion, conservative.

Shouldn't the left look at the future and look at what more we can have instead of what we shouldn't loose?
Is there a left in the liberal/republican debate? Or aren't they just arguing over how much right society should be? Do you think there is something progressive in this debate?

Tell me what's your point of view please. And thank you for keeping civil manners.

We don't call that "liberal". We call it "modern" society...Like most people who don't have that strange two party system.

I don’t think were on the same page here. Liberals have much different policies than conservatives do. For instance liberals as a generally worry more about the home than they do over seas and conservatives tend to be more interested in foreign affairs than liberals do. Conservatives also try to influence society on some level such as Christianity, pro life, and being against abortion. Where liberals don’t want the government involved in such things and believe that they are a private matter. Many conservatives are very involved in getting the churches on their side in debates like abortion, with people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, where the liberals will go straight to the people in a "grassroots" effort as they call it. There are similarities between the two, but there stances on issues are nothing a like.

Are you a maniac? Real conservative don't give a shit about anything overseas. Now only conservatives care about shit overseas because we're in Iraq. Conservatives have been, and still are, American-firsters, screw the rest of the world, we have our own problems.

Liberals do, to a large majority. They're the ones who like the UN, like putting all of our money into those worthless 'Save Africa' programs and the like. Not conversatives.

And Liberals not wanting the government getting involved? Ever heard of public healthcare, yadda yadda yadda... What rock did you grow up under?

(as has been seen with the gay marriage ban in America)

There is no Gay Marriage Ban in America. I don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's most likely a propaganda source.

How do I know?

My state has just passed in the legislature allowing Gay Marriage. It's now up to our Governor to either sign the bill or veto it.

All of this really depends on how Liberal or Conservative you want to be.....

I, for instance, am a Libertarian Socialist, and want no hierarchy whatsoever and let the people rule themselves.....

However, I vote for the American Libertarian Party, 'cause they're the closest we got, and it ain't much.....

Well, to refer to the "Western" part, liberal has come to represent "diet conservative" (or is it conservative lite?). Liberals were radical and the far left during the transition from monarchy to constitutional monarchies in Europe. Today, they are left or even right from center. The things liberals fought against have mainly been achieved: abolition of child labor, wage laws, reduction of hereditary offices and the powers thereof... Now that that's over, they've become part of the establishment while conservatives have shifted to the left and are no longer called "monarchists".

The fundementals of Liberalism come from the French word "liber" meaning freedom of self. So whilst it is argued liberals are Socialist or Atheist, etc it is more true that liberals are just seeking the concept of liber. Freedom of Conscience for example tends to lead one away from established religion, Freedom of Faitum tends to lean towards a more controlled economy, etc.

But, getting back to your point, the modern liberal movement is flawed because liberals are falling further and further behind. Liberals tend to prefer a high brow logical approach to issues, resulting in liberal news outlets being dry and dull by comparisson to the hype of rightist stations like Fox.

Does this mean liberalism will die out? Most definately not. It however means that as newer mediums such as the internet gain popularity as a newsource a more leftist media bias will come back to light. Similar to what we saw in the mid-nineties.

Beyond a doubt the current liberal movement, at least in America, is dead in the water with no escape plan. A Republican President will no doubt be elected again.

The current situation can be likened to the Reagan/Bush Years. Thankfully for liberals though, a moderate/left Clinton defeated Bush.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Thank you The Nazz. I was looking for this word. Are the Liberals Conservative and the Republicans Regresive?
Is there something progressive in either and what is it?
You have to go on a case by case basis, I guess is the point I was making. In the US, for instance, as far as race relations are concerned, the group most people would call liberal are basically fighting a holding action, trying to conserve the gains that have been made over the last forty years, but they're not really going forward, probably because there's not a whole lot more goernment can do on the matter. Race relations will improve or not improve depending on large groups of people deciding that race is no longer an issue, and the more multicultural an area, generally the less racist is becomes. South Florida, where I'm currently living, is perhaps the least racist area I've ever lived in, and I think it's because there are so many cultures represented that there's no dominant one.

As far as gay rights are concerned, of course there's lots of work to be done to go forward and the results are mixed right now. In 2004, there was a big backlash against same-sex marriage, but since then, I believe Connecticut has legalized civil unions, joining Vermont, and California's state legislature just passed a same-sex marriage bill without being forced to do so by a court, so there's progress in places.

For women's rights, the rights are largely protected and accepted now, so the fight has progressed to women getting into places of power in the business and political world, breaking the glass ceiling so to speak. We still haven't had a female candidate for President from a major party yet, but that may change soon--Hillary Clinton is currently the very early frontrunner for the Democrats, which has got to be a first. Whether you like her or not (and I'm not wild about her, personally), that's a major step. The fact that Condi Rice is Secretary of State and that some Republicans hope against hope that she could be the nominee (she can't, not as long as they need the south) is further evidence that women are getting nearer to full equality. The abortion fight is a place where progressives are winning in public opinion, even if they're not doing so well in the judiciary--65% of Americans support Roe v Wade and want to keep it the law of the land.

So there's room for further progress, and these are just three social issues. There's lots more room for progressiveness in areas like the environment and labor law, for example.

We live in a liberal western society, with liberal being an inherently incredibly broad term, reaching from Hobbes to Rand to a dozens of other philosophies. That is why I despise using the terms liberal and conservative, and feel that more descriptive terms ought to be used. But that's just me, and I'm quirky.