NationStates Jolt Archive

Okie .... this has probably been done before, but I'm doing it again because I know it hasn't been done in long enough that were I to bump any other thread on this subject, it would be gravedigging.

Challenge: Define Liberal.

Seems simple enough, doesn't it?

Well, here's the deal. I am Liberal. I am also American. Apparently there's folks in Canada and the UK and other places that think my definition of being Liberal is somehow different from their definition.

This confuses the hell out of me.

Here is what I mean when I say I am "Liberal":

1] Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2] Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

When I say I am a "Leftist", I mean:

One who supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare.

Now .... how, precisely, am I not technically Liberal in Canada or the UK? How does the definition differ? How does a European Liberal think or act differently than I, an American Liberal?

End this madness!!!

Oh ... and if you have a joking or biting definition for Liberal born out of hatred, ignorance, shame, or too many sweaty nights with your own mother ... feel free to post it, too.

I thought you were a commie?

In a lot of other countries, a political party will identify itself as Liberal (capital l). I suppose this means that the concept is subject to change in their country, just as what it means to be a Democrat or Republican in this country has changed over the years.

"Liberal vs. Liberal": Ooh! Can it be a cage match?

Liberalism is the political viewpoint which supports a controlled, regulated market and economic equality. There are subsets within in that espouse different policies. That's normally where the hang-up occurs, as everyone tries to claim that they're the "Liberal" and every other group is either Faux-Liberals or "Extreme leftists".

Everywhere else in the world, Liberal means you're a Free Marketeer. It also means you're pro-civil rights, but you put that behind the "right" to freedom of enterprise.

In America, it means you're a Leftist. It's what every other country in the world uses the word "Libertarian" for. But, it's stupid to use that word as a generalisation, because there are very few Leftists in mainstream America. Funny, because Democrats are often called "Liberals".

This country is so backwards and stupid...

Everywhere else in the world, Liberal means you're a Free Marketeer. It also means you're pro-civil rights, but you put that behind the "right" to freedom of enterprise.

In America, it means you're a Leftist. It's what every other country in the world uses the word "Libertarian" for. But, it's stupid to use that word as a generalisation, because there are very few Leftists in mainstream America. Funny, because Democrats are often called "Liberals".

This country is so backwards and stupid...

Then move!

Well, "liberal" in continental Europe usually goes alongside with "libertarian". The German FDP ("Die Liberalen") is essentially a libertarian party, which fights for gay marriages as well as a flat tax.

In France, "liberal" (particularly "neo-liberal") is often an insult, because it means the unrestricted free market destroying what the French see as their achievements.

In everyday language though, liberal really often just means "live and let live".

In Australia on the other hand, the Liberal Party is a stock-standard conservative party. They want more freedom in the economy (so they privatise stuff, fight unions and so on :rolleyes: ), but they oppose things like gay marriages.

Then move!

I'd find it funnier if I stayed here to annoy the hell out of you.

Oh, and I'll give an illegal immigrant a shitload of money. THAT would be priceless.

I'd find it funnier if I stayed here to annoy the hell out of you.

Oh, and I'll give an illegal immigrant a shitload of money. THAT would be priceless.

Eh your money. If you want to waste it, fine by me.

Eh your money. If you want to waste it, fine by me.
See...that is a liberal statement.

This might also help...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Liberalism is the political viewpoint which supports a controlled, regulated market and economic equality. There are subsets within in that espouse different policies.
See, I always wondered where the break occured that meant that in the US, this would be an accurate statement, while in Europe, you'd fail your first-year PoliSci exam if you said that.

This country is so backwards and stupid...
It isn't a matter of being backwards, it's just that the US has spent the past couple centuries evolving along different political lines than Europe and Australia, and thus has different political labels for the same positions. If that makes the US stupid, then the Germans are also stupid for not realizing that their country is called Germany, not Deutschland.
Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case:
Yes, I know some days it appears that Texas is a country in and of itself, but you have to remember that the rest of the US is included, and that helps to improve the average.

See...that is a liberal statement.

This might also help...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Actually I'm a libertarian, I always thought liberals want to tell us what to do with our money.

See, I always wondered where the break occured that meant that in the US, this would be an accurate statement, while in Europe, you'd fail your first-year PoliSci exam if you said that.

I think it occured when the socialists realized that they would never get elected if they called themselves socialists. So they started to style themselves as 'liberals'.

I think it occured when the socialists realized that they would never get elected if they called themselves socialists. So they started to style themselves as 'liberals'.
When was that though, and who did it? And has McCarthy got to do with it again?

Ok ... so to summarize:

Socially we're all the same.

The difference kicks in that most American Liberals tend to be economically Communist.

Is that what I'm getting?

When was that though, and who did it? And has McCarthy got to do with it again?
Nope. Our first Red Scares were in the twenties, I believe. Socialism went in and out of style fairly quickly in the US. A socialist candidate actually almost picked up a few electoral votes in the elections of 1904 and 1908, and the Popualists were popular in the decades leading up to that.

Ok ... so to summarize:

Socially we're all the same.

The difference kicks in that most American Liberals tend to be economically Communist.

Is that what I'm getting?
Exactly. The Liberals in Romania instituted a flat income tax. That's about as anti-Communist as you can get.

Now that I think of it, American liberals can trace their political ancestry to the Progressives of the first half of the twetieth century. They saw both big business and socialists as their enemies, and were mostly made up of the quickly expanding middle class.
They attempted (and succeeded) in undermineing the socialist movement through government programs for the poor while retaining capitalism.
They allowed the federal government to become more powerful than the trusts, while still beleiving that regulated big business was good for them.
You’d have liked them Leonstein, they were quit pragmatic.

Now that I think of it, American liberals can trace their political ancestry to the Progressives of the first half of the twetieth century. They saw both big business and socialists as their enemies, and were mostly made up of the quickly expanding middle class.
They attempted (and succeeded) in undermineing the socialist movement through government programs for the poor while retaining capitalism.
They allowed the federal government to become more powerful than the trusts, while still beleiving that regulated big business was good for them.
You’d have liked them Leonstein, they were quit pragmatic.

Hmm... Yep, sounds about right. These would be guys like FDR, right?

Well there is in Canada the Liberal party. Reasonably centrist and it tends to appeal as a compromise between the left and right wings of the spectrum. Due to the fact that it has traditionally been in opposition to the (then progressive not now) Conservative Party it has been viewed as the ‘left wing party’. That said the party’s claim to fame up until recently has been its debt busting record, hardly the calling card of a social party.

To be a small ‘l’ liberal there are two thoughts. One is the classical liberal introduced by our happy social contract theorists: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (predominantly Locke). These ‘classic liberals’ were born of three guiding principles, the right to: Life, Liberty and Property. They were originally a movement of reformers which supported the emerging bourgeois economy, the rise of the middle class.

It seems as though the tradition of reform has continued on and contemporary reformers fancy themselves liberals, as the original liberals were reformers. The term it would seem has outlived its usefulness because we live in a liberal society (here in the west) and if you are more progressive than mainstream society you aren’t liberal, as you are pulling further than that tradition allows.

Unless of course you push for more market freedom, then we can call you a neo-liberal which, to the best of my understanding becomes, security of person from government, liberty insofar as it does not infringe on capital enterprise, and extreme liberty in regards to your proprietary rights.

In Australia on the other hand, the Liberal Party is a stock-standard conservative party. They want more freedom in the economy (so they privatise stuff, fight unions and so on :rolleyes: ), but they oppose things like gay marriages.
So, they're American Republicans?

Names mean absolutely nothing.

Nope. Our first Red Scares were in the twenties, I believe. Socialism went in and out of style fairly quickly in the US. A socialist candidate actually almost picked up a few electoral votes in the elections of 1904 and 1908, and the Popualists were popular in the decades leading up to that.
Socialists have never been cool with US. US Americans like our green-backs too much.

The first Red Scares where when the Russian Revolution kicked in, when stopped worring about the Great War. Lots of police action against labour unions, breaking interies, arrests and general mayhem for the working people. In general, big business won, with a few concessions to the prolieriat. However, the First Red Scare, is a mostly forgotten occurence in America. It was rather sad too, an Italian immigrant was murdered without due process and a number of people were deported to Russia, or their places of origin. But, I will add that the First Red Scare primarily consisted of actual socialists, even communists, and so the First Red Scare was somewhat more justified than the McCarthy era.

So, they're American Republicans?

Names mean absolutely nothing.

Pretty much.

I think it occured when the socialists realized that they would never get elected if they called themselves socialists. So they started to style themselves as 'liberals'.
Liberals are not socialists. I've never met a liberal who in favour of collectivisation or the abolition of capital.
I think the confusion arises because most Americans are convinced that everybody who didn't vote for Bush in the last election, or doesn't live in America and isn't a jihadist is a liberal. It's a bit like describing Camile Paglia, Elizabeth Wurtzel and Julie Burchill as feminists: they don't have much in common besides poor manners and have nothing to do with the people the term is more correctly used to describe.