Full Version: The Liberal Definition
Its hard to imagine the word liberal being anything but a bad name in todays politics. After all, Liberals hate traditional american values. Liberals are racists. Liberals are amoralists forcing their agendas down the throat of americans.
Most importantly, Liberals hate America and are always quick to side with European allies in order to undermine the United States mission. Liberals love to see the United States falter and constantly wish they were living France.
The rhetoric against the Kerry ticket could be viewed as a sharp dagger. The Point? Kerry/Edwards constitute the most Liberal ticket we've had in a long, long time. Surely, being liberal is not being American.
Whats really hard to imagine is how such vague, general attacks can be so effective without a general definition of the term. For you consideration:
Ann Coulter
What I see in the above quotes is an assault on a word. Liberals don't always hate America. Liberals do not always believe in moral relativism.
But it seems that, to some, the definition has switched around a bit. In order to be a Liberal, some reason, you have to hate America, you have to be atheist, you have to hate tradition. This only has been brought to my attention after a conversation I had with my Republican cousin.
At first, I thought I might be over reacting a bit because partisan politics on both sides have tried to define one another. But, conservative simply isn't a bad word in Washington. It one were to say that Bush/Cheney was the most conservative ticket, would that be an insult? The only thing really comparable to liberal is the term Neo-Con, which seems to be surprisingly unknown to a lot of people.
Questions for Debate:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Most importantly, Liberals hate America and are always quick to side with European allies in order to undermine the United States mission. Liberals love to see the United States falter and constantly wish they were living France.
The rhetoric against the Kerry ticket could be viewed as a sharp dagger. The Point? Kerry/Edwards constitute the most Liberal ticket we've had in a long, long time. Surely, being liberal is not being American.
Whats really hard to imagine is how such vague, general attacks can be so effective without a general definition of the term. For you consideration:
QUOTE
Liberals always claim to know exactly what to do as soon as it's too late. After Muslims attack with airplanes, they want to investigate flight schools. After Muslims attack with shoe-bombs, they want to investigate shoes. After a Muslim introduces E. coli into New York's water supply, liberals will be enraged that Muslim immigrants taking pictures of New York water treatment plants weren't investigated more aggressively -- as soon as they are done blaming Bush for not stopping the attack amid their caterwauling about the detention of Muslim immigrants. Liberals are the only known species whose powers of reasoning are not improved by the benefit of hindsight. Not only are they always fighting the last war, in most cases they're surrendering.
Ann Coulter
QUOTE(Sean Hannity)
It's Truly astonishing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their Liberal allies were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they turned the offer down.
QUOTE(Sean Hannity)
Named after John Lennon, John Lindh was born in Marin County, a wealthy, liberal suburb of San Francisco. He grew up in a veritable ideological Disneyland of moral relativism, poltical correctness, and not-to-subtle anti-american multi-culturalism, the kind that preaches that America is a racist, sexist, bigoted, imperialist, homophobic, and thus fundamentally evil and oppresive nation.
QUOTE(Rush Limbaugh)
Liberal Democrats are inexorably opposed to tax cuts, because tax cuts give people more power, and take away from the role of government.
What I see in the above quotes is an assault on a word. Liberals don't always hate America. Liberals do not always believe in moral relativism.
But it seems that, to some, the definition has switched around a bit. In order to be a Liberal, some reason, you have to hate America, you have to be atheist, you have to hate tradition. This only has been brought to my attention after a conversation I had with my Republican cousin.
At first, I thought I might be over reacting a bit because partisan politics on both sides have tried to define one another. But, conservative simply isn't a bad word in Washington. It one were to say that Bush/Cheney was the most conservative ticket, would that be an insult? The only thing really comparable to liberal is the term Neo-Con, which seems to be surprisingly unknown to a lot of people.
Questions for Debate:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Man, does this annoy me! 
I know America is a very different place, and I have been told by American friends that 'liberal' is a bad word in the US. To this day, it makes no sense to me. You don't have to hate America if you are an American liberal.
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
Well, the dictionary.com states that liberalism is:
Nothing evil or wicked there. Being liberal doesn't make you anymore an enemy of the US than being conservative does. Its just a way of thinking, and a very common one at that.
I would define being liberal as having a greater concern for society rather than the individual. Liberals want to help others that may find it difficult to help themselves. They recognize that hard work is not the solution to all lifes problems, and that not everyone can have that white picket fence by simply working 7 days. Liberals do not see the poor in society as being scroungers, rather as people trapped in the circle of poverty.
As a result, liberals support taxation tied to income. Those who earn more should in turn contribute more to their government, which in turn should be used primarily to enhance welfare, health and education: NOT for defence. Liberals do not neccesarily want high taxes, or for everyone to be earning the same, simply that the amount paid should be proportionate for everyone. Liberal ideas on taxation will not prevent the uber rich from buying the mansion in Monte Carlo they always wanted, or the middle class from owning two cars and a 5 bedroom house.
In my view, liberals tend to be diplomatic internationalists. For the most part are quite pacifistic and only see war as a last resort. They are also environmentalists and are concerned about the consumption of natural resources and pollution. But really, being liberal is a general term, and two people who describe themselves as liberal can have very different opinions.
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Sadly, not as much as I would hope. It seems the words of propagandists such as Coulter stick more in the minds of the American people than the words of leftist propagandists. How many Americans think being too conservative is a bad thing as a result of the words of, say, Michael Moore? Both Coulter and Moore are biased and make scathing comments, but I reckon more Americans can correctly define what it is to be conservative (although I am sure a lot will mention that being conservative means you love America, which is not something you must do to be conservative).
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Incredibly unfair. Firstly, you cannot attack a term and and dirty it, especially one that describes the way a large % of the American population think. The liberal populous of America do not hate America, they do not strive to see the best in terrorists. They do strive to see that even the enemies of America are not robbed of their human rights, because they believe in freedom (ie liberty) and equality for all, and do not want to see their country abusing the freedoms of others.
The attempt to destroy the word 'liberal' and attribute anti American sentiments to the definition of liberalism quite clearly stems from fear. It is an obvious attempt by conservative propagandists to destroy the competition.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Not at all, there is nothing wrong with either liberalism or conservatism. There may be a greater percentage of people who are conservative or on the right, but that does not mean that liberals are irrelevant or un-American. Conservative Americans state adamantly that America is about freedom and democracy, liberals believe in these values also. It is true that conservatives favour tradition, and hence American values, whereas liberals tend to favour change. However, sometimes change is needed to uphold the values held dear. Liberals are not the enemy of America, those who seek to turn America into a single minded drone state are the people to worry about.
I know America is a very different place, and I have been told by American friends that 'liberal' is a bad word in the US. To this day, it makes no sense to me. You don't have to hate America if you are an American liberal.
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
Well, the dictionary.com states that liberalism is:
QUOTE
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Nothing evil or wicked there. Being liberal doesn't make you anymore an enemy of the US than being conservative does. Its just a way of thinking, and a very common one at that.
I would define being liberal as having a greater concern for society rather than the individual. Liberals want to help others that may find it difficult to help themselves. They recognize that hard work is not the solution to all lifes problems, and that not everyone can have that white picket fence by simply working 7 days. Liberals do not see the poor in society as being scroungers, rather as people trapped in the circle of poverty.
As a result, liberals support taxation tied to income. Those who earn more should in turn contribute more to their government, which in turn should be used primarily to enhance welfare, health and education: NOT for defence. Liberals do not neccesarily want high taxes, or for everyone to be earning the same, simply that the amount paid should be proportionate for everyone. Liberal ideas on taxation will not prevent the uber rich from buying the mansion in Monte Carlo they always wanted, or the middle class from owning two cars and a 5 bedroom house.
In my view, liberals tend to be diplomatic internationalists. For the most part are quite pacifistic and only see war as a last resort. They are also environmentalists and are concerned about the consumption of natural resources and pollution. But really, being liberal is a general term, and two people who describe themselves as liberal can have very different opinions.
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Sadly, not as much as I would hope. It seems the words of propagandists such as Coulter stick more in the minds of the American people than the words of leftist propagandists. How many Americans think being too conservative is a bad thing as a result of the words of, say, Michael Moore? Both Coulter and Moore are biased and make scathing comments, but I reckon more Americans can correctly define what it is to be conservative (although I am sure a lot will mention that being conservative means you love America, which is not something you must do to be conservative).
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Incredibly unfair. Firstly, you cannot attack a term and and dirty it, especially one that describes the way a large % of the American population think. The liberal populous of America do not hate America, they do not strive to see the best in terrorists. They do strive to see that even the enemies of America are not robbed of their human rights, because they believe in freedom (ie liberty) and equality for all, and do not want to see their country abusing the freedoms of others.
The attempt to destroy the word 'liberal' and attribute anti American sentiments to the definition of liberalism quite clearly stems from fear. It is an obvious attempt by conservative propagandists to destroy the competition.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Not at all, there is nothing wrong with either liberalism or conservatism. There may be a greater percentage of people who are conservative or on the right, but that does not mean that liberals are irrelevant or un-American. Conservative Americans state adamantly that America is about freedom and democracy, liberals believe in these values also. It is true that conservatives favour tradition, and hence American values, whereas liberals tend to favour change. However, sometimes change is needed to uphold the values held dear. Liberals are not the enemy of America, those who seek to turn America into a single minded drone state are the people to worry about.
QUOTE
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
Liberals tend to be:
a) pro government regulation of industry to protect the health and welfare of the country
b- pro choice regarding abortions
c) pro environmentally beneficial regulation (subset of a)
d) anti discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation
e) anti imperialistic military actions
f) anti draft
g) pro intellectualism (i.e., higher education)
h) pro international cooperation
i) anti nationalism and national religion
Turn all those around and you get what conservatives tend to be.
QUOTE
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Too much of the American population accept the flimsy arguments that liberals are evil people who want to tear apart "traditional" American values in favor of a more inclusive and open society. This stems from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s where "traditional" values were challenged, and rightfully so. It also stems from the liberalization of divorce, abortion, and bankruptcy laws.
Today, the conservative definition of liberal has degenerated into rather silly character assaults on straw men/women. The troubling thing is that this claptrap is selling well. Guess some portion of our population need boogey men/women to disdain.
QUOTE
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
None of the attacks are well founded and are therefore inherently unfair. Actually, "unfair" is a very mild way of saying "wrong and stupid."
QUOTE
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
The country is not generally leaning right, as the next election will demonstrate. The era of conservative growth has ended with an economy that does not benefit the middle class or provide routes to enter the middle class; it has ended with a dubious effort to raise the ME to the level of democracy we need to reattain.
It is fair to say that conservative values do not reflect American values:
a) Self-interest profiteering
b- Environmental exploitation and pollution
c) Sweet tax breaks for the top 1-2%
d) Outsourcing and insourcing American jobs to foreign nationals
e) Establishing national religion
f) Basing legislature on this national religion
g) Keeping gays and other minorities down
h) Starting wars with highly questionable intelligence
Plenty of other points can be made to support the notions that conservatives have unfairly redefined liberals as un-American, while these same conservatives push un-American agendas. I'm sure other posters will bring up these points, while still others will defend conservatism.
Whatever. The pendulum has swung back to this being a primarily liberal nation interested in international cooperation and domestic improvements, plus progressive policies regarding energy, education, economics, R&D, and others that again will be brought out through other posts.
In 2004, the pendulum had not fully swung. Now, after over three years of the Bush administration, it looks to me like the swing has completed. The accuracy of this assessment will be proven or disproven in November.
QUOTE
Turn all those around and you get what conservatives tend to be.
That is the MOST incorrect statement I have seen on AD.
Please provide links showing...
Conservatives have:
an anit-environmental policy, are for discrimination(aside from gay marriage), for the draft, against people getting a higher education, and want to establish a national religion.
Nice blanket statement there AM. Conservatives are a few of the things you mentioned: pro life, for less government, preemptive military action.
Sorry this was off topic mods.. but I cannot let this outlandish statement made by AM(which was unnecessary to answer the debate question I might add) go by unchallenged.
On topic:
The idea of liberalism to me is that of less accountability to the individual. Liberalism is always about blaming the system or society for the problems of an individual.
QUOTE
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
The Basic difference in thinking that defines someone Liberally minded IMHO is that a Liberal believes that the solution to problems is the Government, rather then the Market. That we are best served by restrictions over individual freedom. Liberals tend to believe that human beings will do the worst things they can get away with given the chance. Especially if they happen to be wealthy, well unless those wealthy people in question are them.
They don't fully believe in personal freedoms. I believe this because they support measures to "protect us from ourselves" be they bans on tobacco, restrictions on legal gun ownership, helmet laws etc.
They don't fully believe in civil freedoms, or the basic goodness of people. I believe this because they support a multitude of laws and regulations restricting how people can do business with each other.
They don't believe in personal responsiblity. I believe this because of all the support they have for the excuses of social ills and bad life experiences that lead to someones bad actions. Ignoring all those who lived through similar experiences and didn't make the same bad choices.
They do believe in the status quo. I believe this because they fight to prevent any changes that seek to reduce the size of any government program regardless of the programs ineffectiveness to solve the problem(s) it was designed to address. The Liberals were in control of Congress, and thus the writing of laws for 40 years. Everything they established they fight to keep, regardless of merit. That is fighting for the status quo IMO.
They don't believe truly in government by the consent of the governed. I believe this because of all the laws they seek the pass "for the good of the people" even when the majority of the people oppose it. And when the will of the people is determined by referendum vote, they will fight that will in court if it differs from their beliefs.
They are pessimists. They will write laws based on marginal scientific conclusions if the conclusions predict doom and gloom for a people, product of the environment. Yet they will ignore evidence of positive tends regarding the same issue.
These are all examples of modern day American "Liberals". These are not what Classical Liberals, or the Democratic Party for that matter, supported 30 years ago.
QUOTE
Well, the dictionary.com states that liberalism is:
QUOTE
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
This definition, could easily apply to some conservatives, best applies to libertarians, and is simply not accurate when it comes to the modern day liberals.
My problem with Liberals, is that I believe in the natural goodness of people and support the autonomy of individuals. I favor civil and political liberty and I demand a government of the people with WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
Yet I don't think one person on AD would describe me as a Liberal, and though all my beliefs are founded in giving people personal freedom balanced by personal responsiblity, the people most frequently at odds with my views here are those that define themselves as Liberals.
QUOTE
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Very few. The Bulk of the American public that bothers to consider politics and government at all are libertarians in nature. there are libertarians in both the Democratic and Republican parties as well. When you talk to people the most frequent thing you hear is "I wish the government would just leave me alone", or "It's my home, my property why can't I do what I want with it?".
QUOTE
3) Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
I didn't bother reading the attacks posted because I considered the sources. However, since you asked the question I scrolled down to read them.
The one quote for Sean Hannity (whom I am NO fan of):
QUOTE
...the kind that preaches that America is a racist, sexist, bigoted, imperialist, homophobic, and thus fundamentally evil and oppresive nation
You see these people everyday. America is always wrong. Americans have no idea how to act, America is responsible for every ill in the world because we are too involved in other countries affairs one day and them America is not doing enough for this or that country another day.
Are all those that say these things liberals? No, but the bulk describe themselves as such.
The bit about the Clinton Administration turing down an offer to get OBL is accurate. Though the administrations reasoning for the time was sound. We don't have anything firm to convict him on. One thing we need to do as people is when we look at the past, we have to remember the social climate, and the available information of that time frame when judging the actions of others.
Are the attacks fair, to a degree yes, though you can make similar attacks against the social conservative side. And the bit about hindsight applies to politicians and politicos in general.
QUOTE
4) If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
This country was founded on individual rights and liberty. Anyone, be they Liberal or Conservative or other, who oppose individual liberty or societies right to hold people accountable for the liberties they choose and the consequences of them is un-American in my opinion. That being said, part of the rights an liberties America was founded on are the right to free expression and speech. So, in essence they are exercising their rights and how can that be truly un-American?
QUOTE
They don't fully believe in personal freedoms. I believe this because they support measures to "protect us from ourselves" be they bans on tobacco, restrictions on legal gun ownership, helmet laws etc.
So what's with their stance on abortion, if they don't believe in "personal freedoms?" Liberals believe a helluva lot more in personal freedoms than conservatives do, except when they encroach on the freedoms of another... such as second-hand smoke deaths caused by tobacco, or senseless tragedies of children finding loaded guns and them accidentally going off, killing someone. Honestly Overland, are you arguing that minimum waiting periods for someone who wants to buy a gun is a bad thing? Or gun safety locks? Or laws restricting cigarette smoking, seeing as how we all breathe the same air?
I don't believe in laws that "protect one from oneself." I don't believe in helmet laws, or seatbelt laws. But conservatives are far from innocent on that charge. What are anti-drug-legalization agendas nothing if but "protecting one from oneself?" Or anti-prostitution laws? Or any host of the multitudes of victimless crimes that conservatives aggressively pursue? Have you already forgotten the PATRIOT Act?
With any amendment that guarantees us certain rights, they are certainly not rights guaranteed to be completely unchecked. There are limits to free speech; one cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. There are limits to gun ownership, none of which severely impede the fundamental right to own a gun, but to simply make everyone a little safer where guns are concerned.
QUOTE
They don't fully believe in civil freedoms, or the basic goodness of people. I believe this because they support a multitude of laws and regulations restricting how people can do business with each other.
That's why so many liberals support rehabilitation and not mandatory jail sentences, right? Because they don't believe in the "basic goodness of people?"
It is conservatives who tout the "three strikes" law. It is conservatives who believe in the irreversible death penalty. If liberals don't believe in the basic goodness of people, then I really don't know who does.
Honestly, laws and regulations restricting how people can do business with one another? I'm not very current on laws concerning business, but what I do know about it, I learn from companies like Enron and Tyco and Halliburton. And if the laws you're talking about are laws that protect consumers from greedy, corrupt companies, I really don't know how you can be against that sort of "business regulation."
QUOTE
They don't believe in personal responsiblity. I believe this because of all the support they have for the excuses of social ills and bad life experiences that lead to someones bad actions. Ignoring all those who lived through similar experiences and didn't make the same bad choices.
I understand where you're coming from on this one. FYI, I'm a liberal who does believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that when judging someone, you should at least take their circumstances under consideration. No one has lived through the exact same hardships as someone else. And not everyone has the ability to cope with these hardships in a positive manner. This is not "excusing personal responsibility," this is simply rudimentary psychology. Just because person A lived through tragedies and came through it okay does not mean person B can. I simply believe you should judge each case on an individual basis, on it's own merits, and not by someone else's standards.
QUOTE
They do believe in the status quo. I believe this because they fight to prevent any changes that seek to reduce the size of any government program regardless of the programs ineffectiveness to solve the problem(s) it was designed to address. The Liberals were in control of Congress, and thus the writing of laws for 40 years. Everything they established they fight to keep, regardless of merit. That is fighting for the status quo IMO.
I thought it was part of the definition of liberal to believe in change
Anyway, this is another example of how many liberals believe in the basic goodness of people. Programs like welfare and affirmative action are essentially from the opinion that "they can do it, they just need help." I don't agree with either, for various reasons, but I do understand the reasoning behind it. I do hope you're being melodramatic when you state that they fight to prevent any changes that reduce the size of any government program, because that's quite a broad stroke you brush liberals with. QUOTE
They don't believe truly in government by the consent of the governed. I believe this because of all the laws they seek the pass "for the good of the people" even when the majority of the people oppose it. And when the will of the people is determined by referendum vote, they will fight that will in court if it differs from their beliefs.
You mean, they fight to uphold Constitutional rights, even when the majority doesn't agree with them? The wonderful thing about the Constitution is that they are rights guaranteed to everyone. Many times the majority is wrong on Constitutional issues, and want to deny certain rights to the minority. Slavery comes to mind. Surely you don't agree that the will of the people usurps individual rights?
Our government is not a "majority rules all" mob mentality. The founding fathers were fearful of just that kind of attitude taking ahold of those in power, and so they specifically wrote safeguards in the Constitution that guarantees against those kind of abuses.
QUOTE
They are pessimists. They will write laws based on marginal scientific conclusions if the conclusions predict doom and gloom for a people, product of the environment. Yet they will ignore evidence of positive tends regarding the same issue
Laws based on marginal scientific evidence, huh? Like oh, say, abstinence-only laws? And hmm, maybe... faith-based rehabilitation for convicts?
I'm kind of disappointed, overlandsailor, that though you state your politics "independent" - which I thought to mean, free of biases one way or the other - you can't find a single positive thing to say about liberals.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jul 10 2004, 02:20 PM)
The idea of liberalism to me is that of less accountability to the individual. Liberalism is always about blaming the system or society for the problems of an individual.
And at the same time, conservatism as 'always' about blaming the individual regardless of the situation.
The truth is, there is absolutely no right. Anyone who considers themselves entirely liberal or conservative is more or less a brick wall when it comes to politics. If we say the liberals blame the system over the individual, and conservatives vice versa (which is more or less true) then we have two opposing arguments. Either one could be true. Perhaps a person is living in poverty because they do not work and try to live off benefits. Perhaps a person is living in poverty because they are not being paid enough for the 44 hours they do each week and their outgoings are higher than their income.
I consider myself a liberal, but my take on liberalism is that I should always look at things from other peoples point of view. In this respect, I am able to accept that I have some conservative leanings (such as on immigration into the UK). Liberals will try to look at why someone is suffering by examing the system in place to support them, but if it is staring them in the face that it is their own fault then there is no reason for them to deny this.
My trouble with the belief that the individual is accountable first and foremost is that it is rarely the case. Most people who live in poverty in the UK do so as a result of poor education, poor living conditions, low wages, low levels of support, homelessness, persecution, low pensions, lack of family or friends, mental illnesses such as depression, drug addiction and alcoholism, etc etc. It is neccesary to examine the individual and the system, but how often does a person live below the breadline when they can get themselves out of it easily?
The conservative focus on the individual is something I cannot really understand. Sure, I am interested in me and what my government can do to help me. But why do I need help? That doesn't make it wrong; people can be more concerned about how they are affected by their government, that is quite normal. However, if someones makes out that the liberal focus on society is a bad thing they are being being closed minded. We are communal beings, society and the systems society depends on are vital to our existence, and personally I find it very important that my government will do all that it can to help and protect those less fortunate than me.
QUOTE
I'm kind of disappointed, overlandsailor, that though you state your politics "independent" - which I thought to mean, free of biases one way or the other - you can't find a single positive thing to say about liberals.
Correct.
Similarly, I can't find many good things to say about Conservatives, but that was not the subject of the topic. A good topic for that discussion can be found here:
Conservativism, is it anti-poor at it's core?
Though, it might be better to start a new topic on Conservatives that mirrored this one since that topics scope was somewhat limited.
I am a libertarian. I believe in freedom from Government. Liberals oppose that belief as do Social Conservatives. The only difference is where they oppose it.
You responded to my post with how social conservatives do similar things. (I say social conservatives because those are the issues you focused on) I agree. I just didn't bother to get into it as it was not the subject of the topic.
My main reason for focusing on those issues was to show how wrong the dictionary.com definition of Modern Day Liberals was.
One side note:
QUOTE
I don't believe in laws that "protect one from oneself." I don't believe in helmet laws, or seatbelt laws. But conservatives are far from innocent on that charge. What are anti-drug-legalization agendas nothing if but "protecting one from oneself?" Or anti-prostitution laws? Or any host of the multitudes of victimless crimes that conservatives aggressively pursue? Have you already forgotten the PATRIOT Act?
Check out this topic: Should we Legalize Prostitution?
Notice which side of politics is arguing in favor of Legalization and which is against. There are people on both sides of politics who hold the same opinion, but the majority arguing against it in that thread describe themselves as Liberal, and are arguing from the point of view of protecting the prostitutes from themselves. The majority Arguing for it, describe themselves as Conservative.
As for the Patriot act. Congress People, Liberal and Conservative alike voted for it. All are to blame. Sometimes people react to terrible situations emotionally, without rationally thinking through. Sometime politicians react to the publics emotional reactions with only their political futures in mind. People on both sides of politics are guilty of this. Similarly, Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the Patriot Act.
QUOTE
One side note:
Check out this topic: Should we Legalize Prostitution?
Notice which side of politics is arguing in favor of Legalization and which is against. There are people on both sides of politics who hold the same opinion, but the majority arguing against it in that thread describe themselves as Liberal, and are arguing from the point of view of protecting the prostitutes from themselves. The majority Arguing for it, describe themselves as Conservative.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I don't believe in laws that "protect one from oneself." I don't believe in helmet laws, or seatbelt laws. But conservatives are far from innocent on that charge. What are anti-drug-legalization agendas nothing if but "protecting one from oneself?" Or anti-prostitution laws? Or any host of the multitudes of victimless crimes that conservatives aggressively pursue? Have you already forgotten the PATRIOT Act?
I don't believe in laws that "protect one from oneself." I don't believe in helmet laws, or seatbelt laws. But conservatives are far from innocent on that charge. What are anti-drug-legalization agendas nothing if but "protecting one from oneself?" Or anti-prostitution laws? Or any host of the multitudes of victimless crimes that conservatives aggressively pursue? Have you already forgotten the PATRIOT Act?
Check out this topic: Should we Legalize Prostitution?
Notice which side of politics is arguing in favor of Legalization and which is against. There are people on both sides of politics who hold the same opinion, but the majority arguing against it in that thread describe themselves as Liberal, and are arguing from the point of view of protecting the prostitutes from themselves. The majority Arguing for it, describe themselves as Conservative.
OverlandSailor this is a half truth. Most people arguing for it are not liberal, but they are not conservative. Most people arguing against it are conservative, by like 5 to 1. The only liberal Isaw that said it was wrong was Paladin Elspeth and then when you got down to it, she wasn't arguing to protect the prostitute from themselves, but rather to protect people from greedy business men/women that would profit on the body of a woman with little other options in life.
(It became apparent to me that arguing for the sake of protecting anyone from himself or herself is just going to incur the animosity of the person and the admonition that I don't know what's better for them than they do, so I don't make that argument much anymore.)
You can probably argue around my positions without ever being able to agree that I am a true liberal. Whereas I believe government exists to serve the people and therefore the government should help the people where social inequality produces poverty and/or inadequate education and health care, I oppose the termination of life by abortions, the death penalty, euthanasia, suicide and war; in other words, I am pro-life down the line; which is by no means a stance typical to a liberal, or a conservative for that matter.
I believe absolute freedom is unattainable, but if it were it would be impractical as well. Government would not exist in a state of absolute freedom. There are constraints designed to keep people from stepping on each other's rights and for the society to perpetuate itself. Seeking freedom in regards to the "vices" through government legislation legitimizing them (in my opinion) is as wrong as taking measures to amend the Constitution to determine just who can be called married and who must not.
I'm sorry, guys, I'm just not a good example of a liberal for anyone to argue.
You can probably argue around my positions without ever being able to agree that I am a true liberal. Whereas I believe government exists to serve the people and therefore the government should help the people where social inequality produces poverty and/or inadequate education and health care, I oppose the termination of life by abortions, the death penalty, euthanasia, suicide and war; in other words, I am pro-life down the line; which is by no means a stance typical to a liberal, or a conservative for that matter.
I believe absolute freedom is unattainable, but if it were it would be impractical as well. Government would not exist in a state of absolute freedom. There are constraints designed to keep people from stepping on each other's rights and for the society to perpetuate itself. Seeking freedom in regards to the "vices" through government legislation legitimizing them (in my opinion) is as wrong as taking measures to amend the Constitution to determine just who can be called married and who must not.
I'm sorry, guys, I'm just not a good example of a liberal for anyone to argue.
QUOTE
OverlandSailor this is a half truth. Most people arguing for it are not liberal, but they are not conservative. Most people arguing against it are conservative, by like 5 to 1. The only liberal Isaw that said it was wrong was Paladin Elspeth and then when you got down to it, she wasn't arguing to protect the prostitute from themselves, but rather to protect people from greedy business men/women that would profit on the body of a woman with little other options in life.
I stand corrected. I took a post in the tread mentioning "Liberals Arguing against it, Conservatives for it" for granted(your post I think, not that I am blaming you for my laziness). My Mistake.
However, it is interesting that in that topic the majority of those who claim to be conservative are arguing for it. As well as the majority of those who claim to be Independent or claim to be Liberal.
1 conservative, 1 Libertarian, 1 Independent, 1 Liberal are arguing against legalization. Also, 1 conservative and 1 liberal didn't out right say it should not be legalized but pointed to problems they felt would be created by legalizing it.
2 conservatives, 2 libertarians, 6 independents, and 10 liberals have posted in support of it.
Don't hold me to these counts, I am not 100% sure they are exact (more Saturday laziness I imagine), but the point is:
A> Your mistaken, the opposition is effectively evenly split. However, it does seem to be a 5 to 1 margin (Liberal vs. Conservative) among the supporters . My mistake. However, there is a 2 to 1 margin of conservatives in favor of it as well.
(What I found more curious was an only 2 to 1 margin in the Libertarian camp. Guess more Libertarians need to speak up.)
B> It seems to me that keeping prostitution illegal is far from a solely conservative issue.
1) How would you define "Liberal?"
The term liberal is badly misused in America, where it typically covers people with all sorts of left wing views. Many of them are socialists or communists. Meanwhile, the true liberals are labeled "neocons". The whole political debate gets very muddled by the confusion in terminology.
There is nothing "liberal" about the people currently being called liberals. Classical liberalism championed laissez-faire-faire capitalism and limited government. As late as the 1960's JFK was considered a liberal. He cut taxes far more than Reagan or Bush ever did, and had an interventionist foreign policy. Today he would be considered a neocon.
As for a definition, lets say that "liberalism" is sadism masquerading as compassion. If the socialist panaceas really worked, then Europe should be a paradise by now. These policies never work as intended, if the intent is to improve the lives of the poor. If the intent is to place power in the hands of the "liberals", the the policies work very well indeed.
2) How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
See above. Most people seem to think the "politics of a liberal" are those that lead to the aggrandizement of the state. I thinks thats a confusion of terms, but given that we know in any case who we are referring to, it's an accurate description of the politics involved.
3) Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Any terms like liberal, conservative, socialist, christian, muslim, etc. are by definition broad generalizations. That does not mean they are not useful or that they do not contain a large degree of truth. The "liberals" are seen by non-liberals as being un-patriotic, hostile to America, believers that that the world would be a better place if America could be taught to appreciate the socialist viewpoint and enter into "cooperative" relationships with other countries. It's really not such a great mystery as to why they should be seen that way. Michael Moore has been championed by many of the "liberal" posters on this site. His opinion of America and the American people could not be more clear.
"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."
"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."
"Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."
None of the "liberals" repudiate this kind of thing. In fact, they repeat it and amplify it. Why then all the shocked amazement that you end up being seen as hostile to America?
4) If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Sure. If the people were actually behind them, then the "liberals" would not have to resort to packing the courts with justices who can be counted on to implement their policies. They would be able to do it in plain sight, by passing laws through the elected legislature. For example, if the people actually though that abortion should be a right guaranteed in the constitution, they could easily make it one. The fact that "liberals" are so reliant on re-writing the constitution to reach their goals exposes both their weakness in numbers, and explains their general unpopularity. Nobody likes having people in positions of unaccountable power over them, especially when these people are so open in their contempt and hostility for those under them.
The term liberal is badly misused in America, where it typically covers people with all sorts of left wing views. Many of them are socialists or communists. Meanwhile, the true liberals are labeled "neocons". The whole political debate gets very muddled by the confusion in terminology.
There is nothing "liberal" about the people currently being called liberals. Classical liberalism championed laissez-faire-faire capitalism and limited government. As late as the 1960's JFK was considered a liberal. He cut taxes far more than Reagan or Bush ever did, and had an interventionist foreign policy. Today he would be considered a neocon.
As for a definition, lets say that "liberalism" is sadism masquerading as compassion. If the socialist panaceas really worked, then Europe should be a paradise by now. These policies never work as intended, if the intent is to improve the lives of the poor. If the intent is to place power in the hands of the "liberals", the the policies work very well indeed.
2) How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
See above. Most people seem to think the "politics of a liberal" are those that lead to the aggrandizement of the state. I thinks thats a confusion of terms, but given that we know in any case who we are referring to, it's an accurate description of the politics involved.
3) Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Any terms like liberal, conservative, socialist, christian, muslim, etc. are by definition broad generalizations. That does not mean they are not useful or that they do not contain a large degree of truth. The "liberals" are seen by non-liberals as being un-patriotic, hostile to America, believers that that the world would be a better place if America could be taught to appreciate the socialist viewpoint and enter into "cooperative" relationships with other countries. It's really not such a great mystery as to why they should be seen that way. Michael Moore has been championed by many of the "liberal" posters on this site. His opinion of America and the American people could not be more clear.
"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."
"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."
"Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."
None of the "liberals" repudiate this kind of thing. In fact, they repeat it and amplify it. Why then all the shocked amazement that you end up being seen as hostile to America?
4) If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Sure. If the people were actually behind them, then the "liberals" would not have to resort to packing the courts with justices who can be counted on to implement their policies. They would be able to do it in plain sight, by passing laws through the elected legislature. For example, if the people actually though that abortion should be a right guaranteed in the constitution, they could easily make it one. The fact that "liberals" are so reliant on re-writing the constitution to reach their goals exposes both their weakness in numbers, and explains their general unpopularity. Nobody likes having people in positions of unaccountable power over them, especially when these people are so open in their contempt and hostility for those under them.
While I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, I have strong objections to the way the term "liberal" has been demonized. If we were back in the 1950s, the term "liberal" would be replaced by "communist". Not only is it unhelpful to rational dialog but it automatically places the person with liberal self-identification on the defensive. I've been tempted, when someone throws "liberal" at me, to throw "Nazi" back at them just so that we're on an even playing field. Of course, I don't but it is tempting.
So on that note for the remainder of this post, I will use "Nazi" in place of "conservative"....
Are folks like Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh Nazis? In the sense that they identify themselves as Nazis, I suppose they are. The common refrain I see and hear from self-identified Nazis as how biased the "liberal" media is. It has been an effective method for Nazis to shut down any reasonable debate on the merits and facts being reported. Why it's the "liberal" media, the Nazis say, it is implicitly wrong.
Because the debate is so polarized, one can't be a liberal or rather one must be very cautious about the term. Nazis have defined the term liberal as that which Nazis are not. The line of logic is as follows:
1a. A Nazi wants the market to fund programs X, Y & Z
1b. A liberal is against the market funding programs X, Y & Z
2. A Nazi is pro-American
3. Therefore, a liberal is anti-American
I disagree with the assertion that liberals want more government control while Nazis want less control. Both liberals and Nazis want large government but in different ways. A liberal wants government to tax using it to create programs for the general welfare. A Nazi wants to borrow using it to create programs for security and defense. A liberal wants to restrain business so that it is more "socially" responsible. A Nazi wants to restrain individuals so that they are more "socially" responsible.
Of course, this generalization is somewhat deflated when one looks at the FCC anti-indecency crackdowns. In this case the roles are reversed. Nazis are restraining business via fines and liberals are against it. Who knew.
The one thing which I believe holds true is that Nazis think generally the market is almost always right while liberals generally believe that the market is often not right.
So on that note for the remainder of this post, I will use "Nazi" in place of "conservative"....
Are folks like Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh Nazis? In the sense that they identify themselves as Nazis, I suppose they are. The common refrain I see and hear from self-identified Nazis as how biased the "liberal" media is. It has been an effective method for Nazis to shut down any reasonable debate on the merits and facts being reported. Why it's the "liberal" media, the Nazis say, it is implicitly wrong.
Because the debate is so polarized, one can't be a liberal or rather one must be very cautious about the term. Nazis have defined the term liberal as that which Nazis are not. The line of logic is as follows:
1a. A Nazi wants the market to fund programs X, Y & Z
1b. A liberal is against the market funding programs X, Y & Z
2. A Nazi is pro-American
3. Therefore, a liberal is anti-American
I disagree with the assertion that liberals want more government control while Nazis want less control. Both liberals and Nazis want large government but in different ways. A liberal wants government to tax using it to create programs for the general welfare. A Nazi wants to borrow using it to create programs for security and defense. A liberal wants to restrain business so that it is more "socially" responsible. A Nazi wants to restrain individuals so that they are more "socially" responsible.
Of course, this generalization is somewhat deflated when one looks at the FCC anti-indecency crackdowns. In this case the roles are reversed. Nazis are restraining business via fines and liberals are against it. Who knew.
The one thing which I believe holds true is that Nazis think generally the market is almost always right while liberals generally believe that the market is often not right.
QUOTE(logophage @ Jul 10 2004, 03:01 PM)
While I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, I have strong objections to the way the term "liberal" has been demonized. If we were back in the 1950s, the term "liberal" would be replaced by "communist". Not only is it unhelpful to rational dialog but it automatically places the person with liberal self-identification on the defensive. I've been tempted, when someone throws "liberal" at me, to throw "Nazi" back at them just so that we're on an even playing field. Of course, I don't but it is tempting.
So on that note for the remainder of this post, I will use "Nazi" in place of "conservative"....
Are folks like Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh Nazis? In the sense that they identify themselves as Nazis, I suppose they are. The common refrain I see and hear from self-identified Nazis as how biased the "liberal" media is. It has been an effective method for Nazis to shut down any reasonable debate on the merits and facts being reported. Why it's the "liberal" media, the Nazis say, it is implicitly wrong.
Because the debate is so polarized, one can't be a liberal or rather one must be very cautious about the term. Nazis have defined the term liberal as that which Nazis are not. The line of logic is as follows:
1a. A Nazi wants the market to fund programs X, Y & Z
1b. A liberal is against the market funding programs X, Y & Z
2. A Nazi is pro-American
3. Therefore, a liberal is anti-American
I disagree with the assertion that liberals want more government control while Nazis want less control. Both liberals and Nazis want large government but in different ways. A liberal wants government to tax using it to create programs for the general welfare. A Nazi wants to borrow using it to create programs for security and defense. A liberal wants to restrain business so that it is more "socially" responsible. A Nazi wants to restrain individuals so that they are more "socially" responsible.
Of course, this generalization is somewhat deflated when one looks at the FCC anti-indecency crackdowns. In this case the roles are reversed. Nazis are restraining business via fines and liberals are against it. Who knew.
The one thing which I believe holds true is that Nazis think generally the market is almost always right while liberals generally believe that the market is often not right.
So on that note for the remainder of this post, I will use "Nazi" in place of "conservative"....
Are folks like Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh Nazis? In the sense that they identify themselves as Nazis, I suppose they are. The common refrain I see and hear from self-identified Nazis as how biased the "liberal" media is. It has been an effective method for Nazis to shut down any reasonable debate on the merits and facts being reported. Why it's the "liberal" media, the Nazis say, it is implicitly wrong.
Because the debate is so polarized, one can't be a liberal or rather one must be very cautious about the term. Nazis have defined the term liberal as that which Nazis are not. The line of logic is as follows:
1a. A Nazi wants the market to fund programs X, Y & Z
1b. A liberal is against the market funding programs X, Y & Z
2. A Nazi is pro-American
3. Therefore, a liberal is anti-American
I disagree with the assertion that liberals want more government control while Nazis want less control. Both liberals and Nazis want large government but in different ways. A liberal wants government to tax using it to create programs for the general welfare. A Nazi wants to borrow using it to create programs for security and defense. A liberal wants to restrain business so that it is more "socially" responsible. A Nazi wants to restrain individuals so that they are more "socially" responsible.
Of course, this generalization is somewhat deflated when one looks at the FCC anti-indecency crackdowns. In this case the roles are reversed. Nazis are restraining business via fines and liberals are against it. Who knew.
The one thing which I believe holds true is that Nazis think generally the market is almost always right while liberals generally believe that the market is often not right.
1) Your comments are not on topic. How unusual.
2) Refering to consevatives as "Nazis' seems a willfully provocative act. If the term "liberal" has beome an unpopular one, that is due to the unpopulaity of "liberal" policies. I guess it burns you up that conservative policies are not seen as equally unpopular. That does not justfiy you in calling conservatives "Nazis", for the simple and obvious reason that minimising the power of the state was never a Nazi goal. On the contrary.
I suppose you are free to try to make the argument that conservative policies are like those of the Nazis. If the moderators permit. But that is not remotely the topic of this thread.
Simply put.... conservative are more easily duped!! Whether by religion or politics, they follow more easily. They work in half-truths more than liberals as well. I'm not saying this from a Democrat/Republicans stance, but from a liberal/conservative stance. No I can't paint a broad brush and say this is true in every way because there are plenty of people who don't fit the mold. But for the most part, the more conservative someone is the more they are duped.
First fallacy... Democrats are liberal?? Few are from what I see. They are liberal on some issues only to serve as the anti-conservative, but they are not truly liberal. They are pro business, just different businesses. The labor movement is a whisper. The democrats are the other choice out of the elite.
Conservatives hear and read what they want, not what is being written or said, which makes it easy for them to demonize liberals let me give you an example.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer. The conservative will then play on the duped nature of other conservatives. “We are the good guys” mentality permeates conservative views. But killing babies (and women) is not good. Therefore the statement I made is wrong, thereby bad; which makes it “a radical left statement from the liberal left.” Now once this is established conservative will never debate the factuality of my statement. They will then begin to tell people what I actually mean, which will inevitably come out totally different than the statement I made. I’m not paranoid. Take a look at transcripts from Scarborough Country on July 8 on MSNBC . In it he talks about what Michael Moore says, then translate it to something totally different.
This is what Moore wrote:
This is what Scarborough translated what Moore said:
The two comments don’t even resemble each other. The majority are your common people the poor and middle class. Our kids go to war, not the rich kids, unless they just want some adventure. Our children’s blood will be spilled, not Bush’s daughters. Moore isn’t coming close to saying that Americans need to die in Iraq. He is saying they have to die, because they are over in Iraq where they ARE BEING KILLED!! Just subtle differences in interpretation or a purposeful mislead to further demonize the truth of what it means to be liberal, I wonder.
I also would like to address some points of OverlandSailor and his ideas of liberalism.
I never understood how these things became liberal issues. I support helmet/seatbelt laws, but it is not a big deal if we have them. It certainly has little with me being liberal. I support a persons right to smoke. I'm for legalization of drugs and prostitution.
I like Suzy's answers on this, because the first part of your statement I don't get at all. What civil freedoms are we against?? My only guess is you will say gun control. I will agree with you on this issue. Most liberals are for Gun Control, but not against guns. Women's, Rights, Civil Rights, Gay rights, Abortion, privacy, religious(or lack of) rights are all things liberals are for the most parts are for.
The second part is partially true. Many liberals take a relative stance to good and evil. Socially liberals are more likely to view humans as humans, and question why they made a certain choice. When 9/11 happened a more liberal person is likely to wonder, why did they do that, because the idea the these humans are evil will not resonate with them. They will more than likely look for an answer. A more conservative person is more likely to believe in the idea of good and evil with their GI Joe vs. Cobra mentality. Because of this, they will readily accept that when a person does something destructive it is because they are evil.
Let's talk about from business stance. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I like this saying though I don't think it is true. Power is what all animals and humans strive for. It is our base nature. Given the the ability to control through power, a human is more likely to do so. It isn't the human being corrupt, rather the human being natural. I'm sure you totally understand controlling people from using physical power. But what about economic power. In a capitalist system the almighty dollar, is almighty, next to physical force. It cost money to gain shelter, it cost money to eat food, it cost money to seek health care and education. The market can never regulate itself at the point it is now. Those with money, have power, and indeed they do exert economic force to control us. So here is why a liberal will try to regulate them in business. A liberal understands that money is power and that with power comes the ability to control. Control is opposite of Freedom. The more control you are under the less free you are. As P.E. pointed out we will always be controlled in one way or the other, therefore absolute freedom is as she put it "unattainable". The further left you go on the political spectrum the more that group want to control other ability to control. I know that may not read well to many people. Let me give a quick example:
A liberal wants to control the ability of majority of American's desire to control homosexual marriage. Only by controlling some ones right to control can I help give homosexuals the same freedoms heterosexuals have.
So a liberal believes that if money is power and you don't control those few with it, then you will be controlled by those with it.
This has always been wrong and never will be true. Just another bad interpretation like Scarborough's. A boy takes a handgun out of his mama's purse and kills his schoolmates. The conservative says he is wrong, the liberal says he is wrong. The conservative leaves it at that. The liberal searches as to why. Why do we as a society have hand guns. Why do we as a society promote violence. Why do we as society allow poverty and scarcity. The difference is the conservative only cares about personal responsibility and want to take no social responsibility. Next time you see this situation see if what I say is true. The liberal will say the person should not have committed the crime, but because they also believe in social responsibility the conservative does there normal spin and demonize job to portray a liberal as someone who doesn't believe the person should be held accountable. The conservative believe in only one being held accountable( the individual), the liberal wants both the individual and society(if there is valid reasoning) to be accountable
Half truth, yet again. How can you come close to freedom with a tyranny of the majority. Hmmm if it were put to a vote today would people vote to ban gay marriage or allow it? Should we have waited till the majority of people voted to desegregate? Liberals are for referendums on things that don't involve personal freedoms. You want to increase speed limits, go ahead have a referendum. You want to put blacks back into slavery, I'm not really interested that the people be allowed to even make such decisions. Of course, I'm very liberal.
First fallacy... Democrats are liberal?? Few are from what I see. They are liberal on some issues only to serve as the anti-conservative, but they are not truly liberal. They are pro business, just different businesses. The labor movement is a whisper. The democrats are the other choice out of the elite.
Conservatives hear and read what they want, not what is being written or said, which makes it easy for them to demonize liberals let me give you an example.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer. The conservative will then play on the duped nature of other conservatives. “We are the good guys” mentality permeates conservative views. But killing babies (and women) is not good. Therefore the statement I made is wrong, thereby bad; which makes it “a radical left statement from the liberal left.” Now once this is established conservative will never debate the factuality of my statement. They will then begin to tell people what I actually mean, which will inevitably come out totally different than the statement I made. I’m not paranoid. Take a look at transcripts from Scarborough Country on July 8 on MSNBC . In it he talks about what Michael Moore says, then translate it to something totally different.
This is what Moore wrote:
QUOTE
“The majority of Americans supported this war once it began and sadly that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe, just maybe, God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
This is what Scarborough translated what Moore said:
QUOTE
…it‘s certainly shocking to me that Michael Moore would suggest that more Americans need to die.
The two comments don’t even resemble each other. The majority are your common people the poor and middle class. Our kids go to war, not the rich kids, unless they just want some adventure. Our children’s blood will be spilled, not Bush’s daughters. Moore isn’t coming close to saying that Americans need to die in Iraq. He is saying they have to die, because they are over in Iraq where they ARE BEING KILLED!! Just subtle differences in interpretation or a purposeful mislead to further demonize the truth of what it means to be liberal, I wonder.
I also would like to address some points of OverlandSailor and his ideas of liberalism.
QUOTE
"They don't fully believe in personal freedoms. I believe this because they support measures to "protect us from ourselves" be they bans on tobacco, restrictions on legal gun ownership, helmet laws etc."
I never understood how these things became liberal issues. I support helmet/seatbelt laws, but it is not a big deal if we have them. It certainly has little with me being liberal. I support a persons right to smoke. I'm for legalization of drugs and prostitution.
QUOTE
They don't fully believe in civil freedoms, or the basic goodness of people. I believe this because they support a multitude of laws and regulations restricting how people can do business with each other.
I like Suzy's answers on this, because the first part of your statement I don't get at all. What civil freedoms are we against?? My only guess is you will say gun control. I will agree with you on this issue. Most liberals are for Gun Control, but not against guns. Women's, Rights, Civil Rights, Gay rights, Abortion, privacy, religious(or lack of) rights are all things liberals are for the most parts are for.
The second part is partially true. Many liberals take a relative stance to good and evil. Socially liberals are more likely to view humans as humans, and question why they made a certain choice. When 9/11 happened a more liberal person is likely to wonder, why did they do that, because the idea the these humans are evil will not resonate with them. They will more than likely look for an answer. A more conservative person is more likely to believe in the idea of good and evil with their GI Joe vs. Cobra mentality. Because of this, they will readily accept that when a person does something destructive it is because they are evil.
Let's talk about from business stance. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I like this saying though I don't think it is true. Power is what all animals and humans strive for. It is our base nature. Given the the ability to control through power, a human is more likely to do so. It isn't the human being corrupt, rather the human being natural. I'm sure you totally understand controlling people from using physical power. But what about economic power. In a capitalist system the almighty dollar, is almighty, next to physical force. It cost money to gain shelter, it cost money to eat food, it cost money to seek health care and education. The market can never regulate itself at the point it is now. Those with money, have power, and indeed they do exert economic force to control us. So here is why a liberal will try to regulate them in business. A liberal understands that money is power and that with power comes the ability to control. Control is opposite of Freedom. The more control you are under the less free you are. As P.E. pointed out we will always be controlled in one way or the other, therefore absolute freedom is as she put it "unattainable". The further left you go on the political spectrum the more that group want to control other ability to control. I know that may not read well to many people. Let me give a quick example:
A liberal wants to control the ability of majority of American's desire to control homosexual marriage. Only by controlling some ones right to control can I help give homosexuals the same freedoms heterosexuals have.
So a liberal believes that if money is power and you don't control those few with it, then you will be controlled by those with it.
QUOTE
They don't believe in personal responsiblity. I believe this because of all the support they have for the excuses of social ills and bad life experiences that lead to someones bad actions. Ignoring all those who lived through similar experiences and didn't make the same bad choices.
This has always been wrong and never will be true. Just another bad interpretation like Scarborough's. A boy takes a handgun out of his mama's purse and kills his schoolmates. The conservative says he is wrong, the liberal says he is wrong. The conservative leaves it at that. The liberal searches as to why. Why do we as a society have hand guns. Why do we as a society promote violence. Why do we as society allow poverty and scarcity. The difference is the conservative only cares about personal responsibility and want to take no social responsibility. Next time you see this situation see if what I say is true. The liberal will say the person should not have committed the crime, but because they also believe in social responsibility the conservative does there normal spin and demonize job to portray a liberal as someone who doesn't believe the person should be held accountable. The conservative believe in only one being held accountable( the individual), the liberal wants both the individual and society(if there is valid reasoning) to be accountable
QUOTE
They don't believe truly in government by the consent of the governed. I believe this because of all the laws they seek the pass "for the good of the people" even when the majority of the people oppose it. And when the will of the people is determined by referendum vote, they will fight that will in court if it differs from their beliefs.
Half truth, yet again. How can you come close to freedom with a tyranny of the majority. Hmmm if it were put to a vote today would people vote to ban gay marriage or allow it? Should we have waited till the majority of people voted to desegregate? Liberals are for referendums on things that don't involve personal freedoms. You want to increase speed limits, go ahead have a referendum. You want to put blacks back into slavery, I'm not really interested that the people be allowed to even make such decisions. Of course, I'm very liberal.
QUOTE
If the term "liberal" has beome an unpopular one, that is due to the unpopulaity of "liberal" policies
Ultimately, I would disagree with you there. As I pointed out in my introductory post, it seems as though the definition of Liberal has shifted from their policies to various other points. For instance, Liberals hate America. This is not a policy, but many on the right claim that liberals are defined by this point (Not only that point, of course). Many walk away with the idea that you cannot be Liberal if you don't hate America because hating America is what Liberalism is all about.
It is ultimately comparable to Communism. The US proganda machine during the Cold War set out to define the evils of Communism. The videos I saw were astonishing, apparently Communist hate families and freedom. If asked, I bet that many people would assume that Communism takes on traits of totalitarianism. In reality, the policies of Communism do not neccesarily call for totalitarianism. However, a Communist/Marxist is hated just the same.
While this thread seems to set us up for blanket generalizations and ad hominems 
, let's try to keep the inflammatory language out of this debate.
TOPICS:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
, let's try to keep the inflammatory language out of this debate. TOPICS:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
QUOTE(flenser @ Jul 10 2004, 12:34 PM)
1) Your comments are not on topic. How unusual.
Hmm... I thought the topic was at least in part about how "liberal" has been demonized (or not as the case may be). My statements seems perfectly in line with that.
QUOTE
2) Refering to consevatives as "Nazis' seems a willfully provocative act.
Ahh...you caught me. Yes, indeed, this was a willfully provocative act designed to illustrate that demonization has no place within reasoned dialog.
QUOTE
If the term "liberal" has beome an unpopular one, that is due to the unpopulaity of "liberal" policies.
Umm...Weren't you just stating earlier that Neo-cons are a type of liberal? Not that I agree but this position seems antithetical to that. It's one thing to be unpopular; it's quite another to be demonized.
QUOTE
I guess it burns you up that conservative policies are not seen as equally unpopular. That does not justfiy you in calling conservatives "Nazis", for the simple and obvious reason that minimising the power of the state was never a Nazi goal. On the contrary.
To be honest, I agree with some Nazi...I mean....conservative policies. I am sorry if you were offended. And here I thought "political correctness" was on the liberal agenda....
QUOTE
I suppose you are free to try to make the argument that conservative policies are like those of the Nazis. If the moderators permit. But that is not remotely the topic of this thread.
Again, the point wasn't to compare conservatives with Nazis, the point was to illustrate how demonization works against constructive dialog.
QUOTE
Ultimately, I would disagree with you there. As I pointed out in my introductory post, it seems as though the definition of Liberal has shifted from their policies to various other points. For instance, Liberals hate America. This is not a policy, but many on the right claim that liberals are defined by this point (Not only that point, of course). Many walk away with the idea that you cannot be Liberal if you don't hate America because hating America is what Liberalism is all about..
Why do you say that this is not a policy? On one level you are correct. It is a motivation for a policy. But the policy springing from the motivation is hostile to America. Note the desire by "liberals" to subordinate American foreign and domestic policy to various international bodies. Even if these bodies were ideal and virtious, the desire to take such actions seems pretty suspicious of the ability of Americans to govern themselves. And of course, the reality is that bodies such as the UN and ICC are dominated by countries whose own policies, foreign and domestic, make America seem as pure as snow.
"Liberals" themselves do not make much of an attempt to hide their hostility to America and Americans. I quoted Moore, but I could just as easily post similar views by posters to this site who describe themselves as liberal. Or from any of a large number of spokesmen for the "liberal" cause. Would you conceed that these kinds of sentiments are explicitly anti--American? If not, can you cite any statements which you feel are hostile to America?
QUOTE
It is ultimately comparable to Communism. The US proganda machine during the Cold War set out to define the evils of Communism. The videos I saw were astonishing, apparently Communist hate families and freedom. If asked, I bet that many people would assume that Communism takes on traits of totalitarianism. In reality, the policies of Communism do not neccesarily call for totalitarianism. However, a Communist/Marxist is hated just the same. .
I suppose it is ultimately comparable to communism. I'm surprised that you are surprised that anyone would suggest that communism is hostile to families and freedom. It would seem that communsim has a pretty well established track record as a political system, and that it has consistently been hostile to families, freedom, and even life itself. A hundred million dead in a hundred years must say something about communism. I don't see how any of it is good. The polices of communism may not call for totalitarianism, but the two have always gone hand-in-hand up to now. That is simply the historical record.
I see some of the posters here are acknowleging my point that the "liberalism" whcih everyone is so upset about is not the historical liberalism, but rather a rebranding of left-wing causes, including socialism and communism.
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
QUOTE
Why do you say that this is not a policy? On one level you are correct. It is a motivation for a policy. But the policy springing from the motivation is hostile to America.
I reject that it is a policy of liberals to hate America. Living in California, I know plenty of Liberals and none of them are anti-american at all. Furthermore, Micheal Moore isn't the Zaar of Liberalism. He might personally hate America, but his views about the United States are not a defining point of a Liberal. Because the term "liberal" does not deal with appraisals of the United States, and a Liberal does not have to hate America to be a Liberal, it is inncorrect to say that Liberals hate America.
QUOTE
I'm surprised that you are surprised that anyone would suggest that communism is hostile to families and freedom. It would seem that communsim has a pretty well established track record as a political system, and that it has consistently been hostile to families, freedom, and even life itself. A hundred million dead in a hundred years must say something about communism. I don't see how any of it is good. The polices of communism may not call for totalitarianism, but the two have always gone hand-in-hand up to now. That is simply the historical record.
Communism, or at least the Marxist version, is about creating a classless society. It has nothing to do with Familes, or freedom (well, arguable it does have something to do with economic freedom). Nor does a Communist have to be against "life itself" in order to be a Communist. So to say that Communists are against life itself is faulty, because you could be a Communist without ever having to be against life.
The same applies to totalitarianism; a Communist doesn't have to be totalitarian in order to be a Communist. None of these points about freedom, or familes, or life accurately define what a Communist is. The propaganda and demonization has come in and added some new definitions to the term that are not reflective of the term they define.
QUOTE
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
A modern American liberal is a person or group of people who are looking to unseat or weaken the existing power base to "open" the field to a much larger group of excluded persons and points of view.
They are NOT populatists, they typically advocate for despised minority groups and/or positions.
Examples of American Liberal agendas are homosexual rights, immigration/multiculturalism, and internationalism, all of which are looked down upon by over 51% of the population.
QUOTE
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
As I defined it, about 70%.
QUOTE
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
The majority of the attacks on liberalism and liberals are very true, especially the claims that they are anti-american.
QUOTE
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
That's a trick question:P
They do reflect *some* of Ameriica's values, the esoteric ones that have no direct impact on people's lives.
Like Freedom of speech, yes it's a constiutional "Value" but it's irrelevant to the majority of people, most people belive that nudity should not be on broadcast televison, that there is no place for blantent anti-American rehtoric on our shores, yet they are constiutionally protected and liberals reflect them.
Where Liberals fail miserably is on the values that truly matter - Law and Order - safe streets (liberals advocate for the rights of criminals), Prayer in school (Liberals advocate for the Atheists who are a minority), etc.
Perhaps it's time we update or stated values - what truly are important to the average american, what really matters.
QUOTE(flenser @ Jul 10 2004, 02:39 PM)
"Liberals" themselves do not make much of an attempt to hide their hostility to America and Americans.
....
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
....
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
Man, your hackles are up, flenser. Liberalism=Anti-Americanism? Are you being ironic? Or do you really believe this to be the case? Have you convinced yourself that I believe that conservatives are baby killers or Nazis? How much more polarized can one get? Do you see how demonization like this is, to put it lightly, unhelpful?
There can be no constructive dialog between differences of opinions when ad hominem attacks are applied. No one likes being called a Nazi (unless I suppose one is a neo-Nazi); just like no one likes being called anti-American (unless I suppose one is indeed against America).
If it makes you feel better, every time the word "liberal" is written or said, pretend the term to mean "anti-American". Similarly, every time "conservative" is written or said, pretend the term to mean "Nazi" or "baby killer". I'm sure you will continue having constructive dialog while keeping this in mind.
QUOTE
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
With all due respect if that is your opinion of this site then you have not bothered to visit most of it. Perhaps you should wander around to a few other political sites on the net to get an idea of just how great this one is. Then maybe you will be able to contribute. But based on the way you choose to word your reply I am concerned for your future here. Hopefully, you will see the light. Yes there are a few "angry liberals" on AD, but they are few and far between. This is a place of reasonable discourse, we welcome you to try it.
QUOTE
Communism, or at least the Marxist version, is about creating a classless society. It has nothing to do with Familes, or freedom (well, arguable it does have something to do with economic freedom). Nor does a Communist have to be against "life itself" in order to be a Communist. So to say that Communists are against life itself is faulty, because you could be a Communist without ever having to be against life.
Communism has failed to create a classless society in every place that is has been in use other then the Kibbutz <sp?> system in Israel.
The reality of communist systems is that the power merely shifts to the leadership and their cronies. They live the life of the wealthy while the rest of the society struggles to buy bread. This absolute power is corrupting and generally leads to abuses designed to maintain it. Abuses that the USSR was famous for and that China is known well for now.
The Kibbutz <sp?> system in Israel is pure socialism. Everyone contributes what they can to the community and the community provides for all. I had the pleasure of visiting one in Israel when I was in the Navy and we stopped in Haifa. This system is rapidly collapsing because of two factors. The first is that younger members are looking at all the work it takes to be a doctor or engineer and seeing that the payoff is the same as the farm workers, so why do all the work? THe other is the younger ones with ambition go off to become doctors and then stay gone, to live in a market economy where they can benefit from their education and hard work.
Socialism can never work with humans. We all desire to live the best we can. So for socialism to work it would have to encompass the entire planet so that no one sees that in some places you can do better depending on your skills and hard work, or it has to be run in the same restrictive nature as the former USSR did which is to not allow anyone to leave.
I find it interesting that you belive that liberals have a greater concern for "society", when their actions point to the fact they are activly trying to dismantel it, or at the very least, make it more to their liking.
On the ecnomic front they may be more socially focused, but on every other front, they are very much diverse (a/k/a *other*) focused.
On the ecnomic front they may be more socially focused, but on every other front, they are very much diverse (a/k/a *other*) focused.
QUOTE
Communism has failed to create a classless society in every place that is has been in use other then the Kibbutz <sp?> system in Israel.
That I agree with. It is a legtimate point to say that Communism has never worked because, frankly, it never has.
QUOTE
This absolute power is corrupting and generally leads to abuses designed to maintain it. Abuses that the USSR was famous for and that China is known well for now.
Another Legtimate point. You could say that historically, Communism has always been taken over by cronies which means that it is not a desirable means of government.
But to say that Communist hate families? Or life? Or freedom? Because Communism does not advocate policy on these things, its unreasonable to claim that a Communist has a loathing for them.
QUOTE
With all due respect if that is your opinion of this site then you have not bothered to visit most of it. Perhaps you should wander around to a few other political sites on the net to get an idea of just how great this one is.
As it happens, I have wandered around a great many sites. I had not noticed that this one was especially outstanding. I assume y'all can take a little criticism, like intelligent adults.
QUOTE
Then maybe you will be able to contribute. But based on the way you choose to word your reply I am concerned for your future here. Hopefully, you will see the light.
Thanks. I'm a fast study. I should be able to manage the requisite level of condescension very soon now. I find it quite remarkable that you focus your ire, not on the posters on this site who engage in bomb-throwing, but on those who call them out for it. What's that all about?
This is the second warning on this thread. Debate the topic, not the poster. It would be a shame to close what could be a very good discussion. 
TOPICS:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
TOPICS:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Flenser,
What bomb are you referring to, I remember you saying.
I read through the posts but did not see where anyone called conservatives baby-killers. Do you believe when i mentioned the word "baby-killers" I was referring to conservatives?? I would really like to know. I had a long post, maybe you skimmed through it, ran across the word and did some of that logic I claim conservatives are famous for. If someone actually said that they are indeed wrong.
This is edited to add:
This post is to ask for clarification, not debate the poster.
QUOTE
I find it quite remarkable that you focus your ire, not on the posters on this site who engage in bomb-throwing, but on those who call them out for it. What's that all about?
What bomb are you referring to, I remember you saying.
QUOTE
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
I read through the posts but did not see where anyone called conservatives baby-killers. Do you believe when i mentioned the word "baby-killers" I was referring to conservatives?? I would really like to know. I had a long post, maybe you skimmed through it, ran across the word and did some of that logic I claim conservatives are famous for. If someone actually said that they are indeed wrong.
This is edited to add:
This post is to ask for clarification, not debate the poster.
QUOTE
Thanks. I'm a fast study. I should be able to manage the requisite level of condescension very soon now. I find it quite remarkable that you focus your ire, not on the posters on this site who engage in bomb-throwing, but on those who call them out for it. What's that all about?
Actually, I was focusing my "ire" if you will on bomb-throwing. What I was suggesting is as polite a way as I could muster was that you should consider take a more reasoned tactic.
I usually don't post to these "What is a (insert political ideology/party)" links, because 1.) they understandably degenerate into overblown rants by supporters and opponents of the label, usually getting nastier and nastier and 2.) the meanings of political terms are extremely flexible, describing a literal meaning, a historical ideology, a modern ideology, a modern party, and a modern constituency, who may or may not use that label. So I'm going to try and keep it clean here and in the matching topic, with a nice, boring analysis. I'll also try to ignore anyone who responds with the maturity/analytical equivalent of "it doesn't mean that, it means child molester!"
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
As to the word it self, we have:
-Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Of course, the political movement originally referred to "hand's off" policies, both in social and economic legislation. My friends in college were largely history and political science majors, so when any of us referred to "liberal" economic policies, we meant deregulation, etc. But, of course, none of that has much to do with modern common usage.
It's difficult to say what someone's talking about today when they say "liberal" unless they provide some clarification. Insisting that it's used to describe an existing, set ideology conflicts with data showing that most voters in America are rather un-ideological: they have views that don't fit into one overarching philosophy very neatly, tending toward a blend of "left/right" preferences. Political nerds like myself may believe they have a consistent worldview, but most folks probably assume whatever label they chose applies to their particular mixture of left/right beliefs.
Terms like "liberal" must be understood in comparison to their opposite. Basically, in common usage, I see little difference in how people use "liberal" and "leftist": it describes which side of some mysterious divide someone falls on. In reality, politics are much more tied up with attitudes that tend to prevail among different clumps of constituents- which are pushed into general "for or against" camps by the two-party system- than by some grand philosophical outlook. Support for gun control doesn't mean that liberalism is a philosophy that is generally hostile to personal freedoms, it means that the liberals generally live in urban and suburban areas closer to high crime areas than to decent hunting. Regardless of the validity of arguments for and against gun control, one's position often has more to do with personal experience than an all-encompassing worldview.
While trying to break the left and the right down into constituent groups is probably the most useful approach to describe what someone's views are and why, the left/right divide is important to catch everyone on a certain half of the political spectrum, and I see liberal as being used to describe anyone to the left of a "centrist". The tricky part is deciding what is the center, and how far from it one becomes "liberal". I often see the argument that political debate in Washington does not reflect the general political leaning- that the political center of the federal gov't is different from the political center of the American people. So, is a liberal someone who is to the left of the political establishment or to the left of the people? Where does the centrist bloc begin or end? I think it'd be hard to decently define "liberal", "conservative", and "centrist" without asking the people a comprehensive set of policy questions, and seeing if there's a statistically useful place for the cutoffs. So, until someone hands me a nice data set, I'm going to roll my eyes when Repubs call Sen. Spector "liberal" and Dems call Sen. Lieberman "conservative".
2) How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
I dunno. A small number of political science professors working in the sub-field of opinion research, who have a clear definition of the term and great methodology. Most people use it as a broad term of either insult or praise, and don't quibble with inane details like 'meaning'.
3) Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Depends on the attack. The term has been sullied mainly by people using it in an "empty" fashion- where they purposely avoid giving any meaning to the word. This is how we have a country more or less evenly split among "left" and "right" and yet a term synonymous with "leftist" in most minds still seems like an insult: years of it being used as a slur on individuals and not policies, spoken in a dire voice about "outsiders". Politicians thrive on vagueness, allowing people to import their own preferences and biases in a favorable fashion. I see the same reaction to "feminist", a term so vilified that most people it applies to deny it like crazy. If you can't beat a set of ideas, you can always attack the set's name. That's not really unfair, so much as cowardly and mildly dishonest.
The two types of attack that I see as genuinely unfair are those that exaggerate what liberal means, and those that imply liberals act from some secret, evil motives. The exaggeration of what liberals believe is easy to see- I've noticed conservative news sources often have sections devoted to "weird things in liberal areas". The idea seems to be to portray, without any context, what the most liberal people in places like San Francisco believe as synonymous with liberal orthodoxy. Most liberals I know are considerably more concerned with kids without health insurance than whether the state will pay for sex changes- yet I've seen Republicans who, never pulling themselves away from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, sincerely believe government subsidized sex changes are what liberals are most passionate about. There's an easier- and equally unfair/stupid-argument that all conservatives are racist. As long as people studiously believe the other side's most extreme elements are representative of the whole, the polarization of the country is just going to get worse.
The other type of attack that destroys someone's credibility when they use it are statements that purport some hidden, evil goal to liberal policy proposals. This is like liberals who claim that conservatives actively seek to hurt the poor or the environment. I've never spoken to a liberal who wanted enforced atheism- but read some major right-wing publications, and you'd think it was our reason for being.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
I don't buy that the country leans left or right- especially since I define such terms relatively. I think we're two large camps facing another, with a third, small camp in the middle. That being said, if "American values" were defined as what the right believes at this very moment, there'd be some overlap (we're all still Americans, Westerners, etc.), and considerable disagreement. I think it's kind of silly to define American values as only what most Americans believe at a given moment. We have a proud history- I'd find it hard to consider aristocracy, monarchy, imperialism, communism, fascism, etc. "American values" if we all woke up tomorrow believing in them. Much of what ticks off liberals is a feeling the gov't has departed from cherished American ideals. If you think someone who criticizes the PATRIOT Act's effect on the Bill of Rights hates America, you're missing the point, big time. If you think criticizing a President is un-American, then you either failed all your history/civics/poli sci classes or you're being dishonest with yourself.
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
As to the word it self, we have:
QUOTE
a. 1. Free by birth; hence, befitting a freeman or gentleman; refined; noble; independent; free; not servile or mean; as, a liberal ancestry; a liberal spirit; liberal arts or studies.
2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; generous; bounteous; open-handed; as, a liberal giver.
Infinitely good, and of his good
As liberal and free as infinite.
- Milton.
3. Bestowed in a large way; hence, more than sufficient; abundant; bountiful; ample; profuse; as, a liberal gift; a liberal discharge of matter or of water.
His wealth doth warrant a liberal dower.
- Shak.
4. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; as, a liberal translation of a classic, or a liberal construction of law or of language.
5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit; catholic.
6. Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; licentious.
7. Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government; having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic, forms; as, liberal thinkers; liberal Christians; the Liberal party.
2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; generous; bounteous; open-handed; as, a liberal giver.
Infinitely good, and of his good
As liberal and free as infinite.
- Milton.
3. Bestowed in a large way; hence, more than sufficient; abundant; bountiful; ample; profuse; as, a liberal gift; a liberal discharge of matter or of water.
His wealth doth warrant a liberal dower.
- Shak.
4. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; as, a liberal translation of a classic, or a liberal construction of law or of language.
5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit; catholic.
6. Free to excess; regardless of law or moral restraint; licentious.
7. Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government; having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic, forms; as, liberal thinkers; liberal Christians; the Liberal party.
-Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Of course, the political movement originally referred to "hand's off" policies, both in social and economic legislation. My friends in college were largely history and political science majors, so when any of us referred to "liberal" economic policies, we meant deregulation, etc. But, of course, none of that has much to do with modern common usage.
It's difficult to say what someone's talking about today when they say "liberal" unless they provide some clarification. Insisting that it's used to describe an existing, set ideology conflicts with data showing that most voters in America are rather un-ideological: they have views that don't fit into one overarching philosophy very neatly, tending toward a blend of "left/right" preferences. Political nerds like myself may believe they have a consistent worldview, but most folks probably assume whatever label they chose applies to their particular mixture of left/right beliefs.
Terms like "liberal" must be understood in comparison to their opposite. Basically, in common usage, I see little difference in how people use "liberal" and "leftist": it describes which side of some mysterious divide someone falls on. In reality, politics are much more tied up with attitudes that tend to prevail among different clumps of constituents- which are pushed into general "for or against" camps by the two-party system- than by some grand philosophical outlook. Support for gun control doesn't mean that liberalism is a philosophy that is generally hostile to personal freedoms, it means that the liberals generally live in urban and suburban areas closer to high crime areas than to decent hunting. Regardless of the validity of arguments for and against gun control, one's position often has more to do with personal experience than an all-encompassing worldview.
While trying to break the left and the right down into constituent groups is probably the most useful approach to describe what someone's views are and why, the left/right divide is important to catch everyone on a certain half of the political spectrum, and I see liberal as being used to describe anyone to the left of a "centrist". The tricky part is deciding what is the center, and how far from it one becomes "liberal". I often see the argument that political debate in Washington does not reflect the general political leaning- that the political center of the federal gov't is different from the political center of the American people. So, is a liberal someone who is to the left of the political establishment or to the left of the people? Where does the centrist bloc begin or end? I think it'd be hard to decently define "liberal", "conservative", and "centrist" without asking the people a comprehensive set of policy questions, and seeing if there's a statistically useful place for the cutoffs. So, until someone hands me a nice data set, I'm going to roll my eyes when Repubs call Sen. Spector "liberal" and Dems call Sen. Lieberman "conservative".
2) How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
I dunno. A small number of political science professors working in the sub-field of opinion research, who have a clear definition of the term and great methodology. Most people use it as a broad term of either insult or praise, and don't quibble with inane details like 'meaning'.
3) Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Depends on the attack. The term has been sullied mainly by people using it in an "empty" fashion- where they purposely avoid giving any meaning to the word. This is how we have a country more or less evenly split among "left" and "right" and yet a term synonymous with "leftist" in most minds still seems like an insult: years of it being used as a slur on individuals and not policies, spoken in a dire voice about "outsiders". Politicians thrive on vagueness, allowing people to import their own preferences and biases in a favorable fashion. I see the same reaction to "feminist", a term so vilified that most people it applies to deny it like crazy. If you can't beat a set of ideas, you can always attack the set's name. That's not really unfair, so much as cowardly and mildly dishonest.
The two types of attack that I see as genuinely unfair are those that exaggerate what liberal means, and those that imply liberals act from some secret, evil motives. The exaggeration of what liberals believe is easy to see- I've noticed conservative news sources often have sections devoted to "weird things in liberal areas". The idea seems to be to portray, without any context, what the most liberal people in places like San Francisco believe as synonymous with liberal orthodoxy. Most liberals I know are considerably more concerned with kids without health insurance than whether the state will pay for sex changes- yet I've seen Republicans who, never pulling themselves away from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, sincerely believe government subsidized sex changes are what liberals are most passionate about. There's an easier- and equally unfair/stupid-argument that all conservatives are racist. As long as people studiously believe the other side's most extreme elements are representative of the whole, the polarization of the country is just going to get worse.
The other type of attack that destroys someone's credibility when they use it are statements that purport some hidden, evil goal to liberal policy proposals. This is like liberals who claim that conservatives actively seek to hurt the poor or the environment. I've never spoken to a liberal who wanted enforced atheism- but read some major right-wing publications, and you'd think it was our reason for being.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
I don't buy that the country leans left or right- especially since I define such terms relatively. I think we're two large camps facing another, with a third, small camp in the middle. That being said, if "American values" were defined as what the right believes at this very moment, there'd be some overlap (we're all still Americans, Westerners, etc.), and considerable disagreement. I think it's kind of silly to define American values as only what most Americans believe at a given moment. We have a proud history- I'd find it hard to consider aristocracy, monarchy, imperialism, communism, fascism, etc. "American values" if we all woke up tomorrow believing in them. Much of what ticks off liberals is a feeling the gov't has departed from cherished American ideals. If you think someone who criticizes the PATRIOT Act's effect on the Bill of Rights hates America, you're missing the point, big time. If you think criticizing a President is un-American, then you either failed all your history/civics/poli sci classes or you're being dishonest with yourself.
Back to the questions:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
This I believe is how 'liberal' should be defined, however due to the utter polarization of American politics the word liberal automatically carries the leftist tag as well.
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Sadly about as many as could define canorous, and that my friend is very, very few... because from a nationalistic average, were as dumb as a box full of hair.
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Yes of course they are unfair, becuase these attacks come in the form of demonization from important 'respected' talking heads, without dialogue (never debate over the truthfulness of statements), so that viewers/listeners never get to form an informed opinion. The exact same thing happens to the word conservative, though I believe far less often, because the word conservative has been given the same rhetorical praise.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Yes that statement would be true. However, since the average American could not accurately define what a Liberal is, they cannot place themselves on the political spectrum (left to right, someone please remind me what the term for this is). I believe the nation views itself as right-leaning, and the right more traditionally harps on familiar rhetoric that encourages those warm-fuzzy feelings that old people get when they look at a flag... but I digress, people are traditional by nature, conservativism by most definitions aims to preserve traditions, Liberals tend to disagree, and therefore make people uncomfortable. Because of these things liberal is a dirty word in most places, and even if one has what the whole of society would consider liberal values, one would not realize it, nor admit to oneself or anyone else for fear of aggression or blacklisting. If a word carries a stigma (geek, homo, etc.) it will be naturally avoided.
I also have to mention that American values hasn't been defined. Exactly what are American values? Freedom? Democracy? Civil Liberties? Our nation was established by what could be considered liberal revolutionaries who wanted to persue these things. America was founded on the same calibre of ideas that now are thrown around in 'Liberal' think tanks across the country. I believe that my values coincide fairly well with what the "founding fathers" intended, my values DO NOT coincide with mainstream conservatism, my values are therefore culturally defined as 'liberal' so I conclude that Liberal values coincide with the original template for American Values. I believe that Americans today support that template, but are completely unaware that 'their' America no longer represents those values, and only uses the template as a rhetorical reference to incite warm-fuzzy feelings in people. It's just my opinion, but as an argument it's viable.
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
QUOTE
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
This I believe is how 'liberal' should be defined, however due to the utter polarization of American politics the word liberal automatically carries the leftist tag as well.
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Sadly about as many as could define canorous, and that my friend is very, very few... because from a nationalistic average, were as dumb as a box full of hair.
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Yes of course they are unfair, becuase these attacks come in the form of demonization from important 'respected' talking heads, without dialogue (never debate over the truthfulness of statements), so that viewers/listeners never get to form an informed opinion. The exact same thing happens to the word conservative, though I believe far less often, because the word conservative has been given the same rhetorical praise.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Yes that statement would be true. However, since the average American could not accurately define what a Liberal is, they cannot place themselves on the political spectrum (left to right, someone please remind me what the term for this is). I believe the nation views itself as right-leaning, and the right more traditionally harps on familiar rhetoric that encourages those warm-fuzzy feelings that old people get when they look at a flag... but I digress, people are traditional by nature, conservativism by most definitions aims to preserve traditions, Liberals tend to disagree, and therefore make people uncomfortable. Because of these things liberal is a dirty word in most places, and even if one has what the whole of society would consider liberal values, one would not realize it, nor admit to oneself or anyone else for fear of aggression or blacklisting. If a word carries a stigma (geek, homo, etc.) it will be naturally avoided.
I also have to mention that American values hasn't been defined. Exactly what are American values? Freedom? Democracy? Civil Liberties? Our nation was established by what could be considered liberal revolutionaries who wanted to persue these things. America was founded on the same calibre of ideas that now are thrown around in 'Liberal' think tanks across the country. I believe that my values coincide fairly well with what the "founding fathers" intended, my values DO NOT coincide with mainstream conservatism, my values are therefore culturally defined as 'liberal' so I conclude that Liberal values coincide with the original template for American Values. I believe that Americans today support that template, but are completely unaware that 'their' America no longer represents those values, and only uses the template as a rhetorical reference to incite warm-fuzzy feelings in people. It's just my opinion, but as an argument it's viable.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 10 2004, 08:17 PM)
Flenser,
What bomb are you referring to, I remember you saying.
I read through the posts but did not see where anyone called conservatives baby-killers. Do you believe when i mentioned the word "baby-killers" I was referring to conservatives?? I would really like to know. I had a long post, maybe you skimmed through it, ran across the word and did some of that logic I claim conservatives are famous for. If someone actually said that they are indeed wrong.
This is edited to add:
This post is to ask for clarification, not debate the poster.
QUOTE
I find it quite remarkable that you focus your ire, not on the posters on this site who engage in bomb-throwing, but on those who call them out for it. What's that all about?
What bomb are you referring to, I remember you saying.
QUOTE
I can't close without noting that yet another poster here has claimed that "conservatives are baby-killers". Thats about the level of intelligent discourse I've come to expect of this site. But, no doubt, they are simply doing it to "illustrate how demonization works." Well, I'm learning from the masters.
I read through the posts but did not see where anyone called conservatives baby-killers. Do you believe when i mentioned the word "baby-killers" I was referring to conservatives?? I would really like to know. I had a long post, maybe you skimmed through it, ran across the word and did some of that logic I claim conservatives are famous for. If someone actually said that they are indeed wrong.
This is edited to add:
This post is to ask for clarification, not debate the poster.
Of course, clarification coming up. Glad to be of assistance. Here is what you said.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer.
Looking back, I can't imagine where on earth I got this "baby killer" stuff from. What could I have been thinking?
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Jul 10 2004, 08:18 PM)
QUOTE
Thanks. I'm a fast study. I should be able to manage the requisite level of condescension very soon now. I find it quite remarkable that you focus your ire, not on the posters on this site who engage in bomb-throwing, but on those who call them out for it. What's that all about?
Actually, I was focusing my "ire" if you will on bomb-throwing. What I was suggesting is as polite a way as I could muster was that you should consider take a more reasoned tactic.
You mean, a more reasoned tactic than asking people to debate the topic under discussion, and not go off on tangents about how "conservatives are nazis"?
Or objecting to said posters justifing their ad-hominem tactics by claiming that they are simply demonsrating what demonization looks like, for the beneift of those of us who don't know?
What specific tactic are you recommeding to me?
QUOTE
Of course, clarification coming up. Glad to be of assistance. Here is what you said.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer.
Looking back, I can't imagine where on earth I got this "baby killer" stuff from. What could I have been thinking?
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer.
Looking back, I can't imagine where on earth I got this "baby killer" stuff from. What could I have been thinking?
I don't even know why this is being debated. It was very straightforward and I don't understand how Flenser doesn't understand Droop's context. Let me spell it out:
Droop said that if he were to voice the opinion that our military is killing men, women, and children, that some conservatives would twist those words around and imply that he's calling the military "baby killers." This has nothing at all to do with calling conservatives "baby killers." It has to do with conservatives twisting the intent of his observations.
Now that we've got that all cleared up, maybe someone could direct the thread back towards its intended topic...
lol... exactly, but thanks for proving my point about how the right will twist what you say or misinterpret. Just for clarification.
Here is what I also said.
There was a recent wedding that just got bombed with women and children killed. "Shock and Awe" produced civilian casualties of men, women and babies. We, ourselves admit that civilian casualties are occurring, we call it "casualties of war" So do you dispute that any of our bombs has killed women and babies/children?? I don't think you do. To me this is simple logic. If you kill a a chicken, you are a chicken killer. If you kill a woman, you are a woman killer. If you kill a baby, you are a baby killer. Do you dispute this logic??
Logic aside, you still did not read what I wrote. The statement I made was to show how me saying that "We're over there killing men, women, and babies" would be interpreted by a conservative to mean "military are baby killers." I was slightly wrong, because here was your interpretation.
After reading this clarification and my emphasis, I hope you can see where you are mistaken in your interpretations.
Here is what I also said.
QUOTE
Conservatives hear and read what they want, not what is being written or said, which makes it easy for them to demonize liberals let me give you an example.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer. The conservative will then play on the duped nature of other conservatives.
We’re over there killing men, women, and babies. A conservative would take this as me saying the military are baby killers. But if you drop a bomb or shoot a mortar and a baby dies, then you killed it, which means you are a baby killer. The conservative will then play on the duped nature of other conservatives.
There was a recent wedding that just got bombed with women and children killed. "Shock and Awe" produced civilian casualties of men, women and babies. We, ourselves admit that civilian casualties are occurring, we call it "casualties of war" So do you dispute that any of our bombs has killed women and babies/children?? I don't think you do. To me this is simple logic. If you kill a a chicken, you are a chicken killer. If you kill a woman, you are a woman killer. If you kill a baby, you are a baby killer. Do you dispute this logic??
Logic aside, you still did not read what I wrote. The statement I made was to show how me saying that "We're over there killing men, women, and babies" would be interpreted by a conservative to mean "military are baby killers." I was slightly wrong, because here was your interpretation.
QUOTE
"conservatives are baby-killers"
After reading this clarification and my emphasis, I hope you can see where you are mistaken in your interpretations.
QUOTE(flenser @ Jul 10 2004, 08:49 PM)
You mean, a more reasoned tactic than asking people to debate the topic under discussion, and not go off on tangents about how "conservatives are nazis"?
Or objecting to said posters justifing their ad-hominem tactics by claiming that they are simply demonsrating what demonization looks like, for the beneift of those of us who don't know?
Or objecting to said posters justifing their ad-hominem tactics by claiming that they are simply demonsrating what demonization looks like, for the beneift of those of us who don't know?
Here's something which you might find interesting to read by Jonathan Swift: A Modest Proposal. The idea of this essay is to propose something that is so patently ridiculous and awful as to force one to seriously re-evaluate one's position. If you believe that I (or anyone else on this debate forum) actually believe that conservatives are Nazis, then I think you've missed the point I was trying to make. Similarly, I hope I am taking your response that liberals are anti-American in the same facetious light. It's hard to imagine a less fruitful line of dialog if you were to actually believe this to be true.
Flenser, double posting is discouraged here. If you wish to respond to more than one member's debate points, you should consolidate them all in one reponse. Or, if you decide that you need to add more information to your post, you should use the "edit" feature and modify your post. 
To everyone:
This thread is really going off topic and has earned two warnings already. The question for debate are:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
This thread is really going off topic and has earned two warnings already. The question for debate are:
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
1)How would you define "Liberal?"
Having already attempted to answer this question twice at 2 o'clock yesterday morning and winding up with a six-hundred word list both times, I'll try again.
Essentially, a liberal is someone who believes that the government, as the representative of all the people, should help all the people. They believe that all the people are entitled to housing, health care, and an education. They believe that patriotism is more than simply waving a flag and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. They believe in proportional taxation. They don't believe that people with an ounce of pot should be punished more harshly than the person who ruins thousands of employees' lives. They believe in moral relativism in matters of personal morality (e.g. marriage) and moral absolutism for matters of public morality (e.g. corporate governance). They believe in social justice and protecting Constitutional rights for everyone. They believe in lifting the poor and downtrodden to achieve the most they can. They believe in personal accountability, but also realize that things happen to people that are unavoidable and safety nets are needed. I could go on and on
.
2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Not many. Most people think of "liberal" as some peace-loving, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, anti-pragmatic hippie; very few people can identify what either true liberals or conservatives stand for because the definition of either has been so demonized by the other side. "Liberal" has been transformed into a curse word, something that most politicians are terrified to be associated with.
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Yes, they are; no they do not.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Who says that the country is "generally right-leaning"? For every poll you show me that "proves" the country leans right on an issue, I can show you one that shows they lean left on the same issue. Liberals reflect American values: always have. I'm sure there are those who would differ with me there, but where would be be if it weren't for liberals? A good number of the founding fathers were liberals; I personally think that Jesus was a liberal (he certainly was a liberal for his time). Liberals from every walk of life have changed our society for the better. Liberalism has made numerous contributions to our society and nobody who is truly liberal should view the term as a mark of shame; rather, they should embrace it with pride. I certainly do.
Having already attempted to answer this question twice at 2 o'clock yesterday morning and winding up with a six-hundred word list both times, I'll try again.
Essentially, a liberal is someone who believes that the government, as the representative of all the people, should help all the people. They believe that all the people are entitled to housing, health care, and an education. They believe that patriotism is more than simply waving a flag and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. They believe in proportional taxation. They don't believe that people with an ounce of pot should be punished more harshly than the person who ruins thousands of employees' lives. They believe in moral relativism in matters of personal morality (e.g. marriage) and moral absolutism for matters of public morality (e.g. corporate governance). They believe in social justice and protecting Constitutional rights for everyone. They believe in lifting the poor and downtrodden to achieve the most they can. They believe in personal accountability, but also realize that things happen to people that are unavoidable and safety nets are needed. I could go on and on
. 2)How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the Politics of a Liberal?
Not many. Most people think of "liberal" as some peace-loving, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, anti-pragmatic hippie; very few people can identify what either true liberals or conservatives stand for because the definition of either has been so demonized by the other side. "Liberal" has been transformed into a curse word, something that most politicians are terrified to be associated with.
3)Are the attacks on the term "Liberal" unfair, or do they correctly represent the views of the Liberal populous?
Yes, they are; no they do not.
4)If the the Country is generally right leaning, then isn't it fair to say that Liberals do not reflect American values?
Who says that the country is "generally right-leaning"? For every poll you show me that "proves" the country leans right on an issue, I can show you one that shows they lean left on the same issue. Liberals reflect American values: always have. I'm sure there are those who would differ with me there, but where would be be if it weren't for liberals? A good number of the founding fathers were liberals; I personally think that Jesus was a liberal (he certainly was a liberal for his time). Liberals from every walk of life have changed our society for the better. Liberalism has made numerous contributions to our society and nobody who is truly liberal should view the term as a mark of shame; rather, they should embrace it with pride. I certainly do.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 10 2004, 11:09 PM)
There was a recent wedding that just got bombed with women and children killed.
This the same wedding where bags of drugs, piles of cash, numerous RPGs, AKs, mortars, and other sorts of weaponry, along with fake passports/visas and the equipment to make these sorts of things, med-kits, and etc (all the makings of waystation for foreign fighters) were all found? The same wedding where the CPA showed sites of the attack and compared it to the so-called wedding video, pointing out that the terrain did not match (and to which the AP admitted they were unable to verify)? The one out on the Syrian border in the middle of nowhere?
Just want to make sure we're thinking of the same wedding here...
keric, What you're commenting on was merely used as an example, and we just got another warning about this thread being taken off topic too often.
From the American Heritage Dictionary online:
Of course, what we aspire to, we do not always attain, just as it is with the conservatives and their aspirations.
Liberal used to be a term with positive connotations; actually, it's really only in the political arena where it is vilified.
It's hard to tell how much of the American public is considered liberal. But I think that for the most part, the American public looks at the issues and how it feels about them. That's where the soundbites come in. If the public likes the soundbite the candidate utters, then it is probably going to vote for that candidate without making an effort to examine the context of the soundbite or whether it is an accurate representation of reality. And sometimes there are people who will identify themselves as conservatives, not because they necessarily support the conservative values, but as a reaction to being labeled "liberal." If the truth were told, I think this country is mostly moderate with crossover issues to either party.
From the American Heritage Dictionary online:
QUOTE
liberal: ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
OTHER FORMS: liberally, liberalness
OTHER FORMS: liberally, liberalness
Of course, what we aspire to, we do not always attain, just as it is with the conservatives and their aspirations.
Liberal used to be a term with positive connotations; actually, it's really only in the political arena where it is vilified.
It's hard to tell how much of the American public is considered liberal. But I think that for the most part, the American public looks at the issues and how it feels about them. That's where the soundbites come in. If the public likes the soundbite the candidate utters, then it is probably going to vote for that candidate without making an effort to examine the context of the soundbite or whether it is an accurate representation of reality. And sometimes there are people who will identify themselves as conservatives, not because they necessarily support the conservative values, but as a reaction to being labeled "liberal." If the truth were told, I think this country is mostly moderate with crossover issues to either party.
I am not a liberal and I dont think liberals hate America its just a different point of view!
Liberalism to me means the Government is the all powerful entity, higher taxes for more government jobs and burocracies, its a step away from socialism.
Some like this idea I do not.
In short if liberalism has a bad name blame Micheal Moore! This worm goes to other countries and tells tehm that Americans are clueless and...well Dumb. And he doesn't differentiate by party he says that about all of us.
I have no party affilliation I just vote for the man or woman with the same opinions as I have. And thats not a liberal...yet. parties tend to flip flop on issues, Compare JFK to Bill Clinton or Al Gore and you'll see my point.
I hate the French and Kerrys connection to them doesn't help his cause in my eyes.
The French opposed an Iraq war because they were gonna loose Millions. They didn't care about the oppression forced upon the people. But we're the EVIL ones for removing a brutal Dictator? That makes no sense to me.
The next time France is conquered in less than six months they better not come crying to America to Vanquish the bad guys!
Liberalism to me means the Government is the all powerful entity, higher taxes for more government jobs and burocracies, its a step away from socialism.
Some like this idea I do not.
In short if liberalism has a bad name blame Micheal Moore! This worm goes to other countries and tells tehm that Americans are clueless and...well Dumb. And he doesn't differentiate by party he says that about all of us.
I have no party affilliation I just vote for the man or woman with the same opinions as I have. And thats not a liberal...yet. parties tend to flip flop on issues, Compare JFK to Bill Clinton or Al Gore and you'll see my point.
I hate the French and Kerrys connection to them doesn't help his cause in my eyes.
The French opposed an Iraq war because they were gonna loose Millions. They didn't care about the oppression forced upon the people. But we're the EVIL ones for removing a brutal Dictator? That makes no sense to me.
The next time France is conquered in less than six months they better not come crying to America to Vanquish the bad guys!
QUOTE(Amendment69 @ Jul 14 2004, 05:26 PM)
The next time France is conquered in less than six months they better not come crying to America to Vanquish the bad guys!
Firstly, as a non-American, the demonisation of the term Liberal has always been hard to swallow. Please keep in mind that the political party in power for the last 11 years in MY country has been the Liberal Party of Canada.
Clearly liberal has a different meaning depending on which country the term originates from, and probably depending on who says it even in the same country. Even in Canada, which is certainly more left leaning than the US (for which we are all thankful
) calling liberalism 'a step away from socialism' is clearly an exaggeration.In the US, Liberals are certainly not anti-American. I find it baffling that people refer to Moore as anti-american, considering how many times he has said he loves the US and has a great deal of faith in Americans. he is vehemently anti-Bush, and I suppose Bush supporters would like you to believe that anti-Bush = anti-American, but this is not the case.
QUOTE
The French opposed an Iraq war because they were gonna loose Millions. They didn't care about the oppression forced upon the people. But we're the EVIL ones for removing a brutal Dictator?
Please refer to the International Debate forum, Anti-European sentiment thread for the dismissal of this persistant yet silly idea regarding France.
On a more constructive note, one major difference between conservatives and liberals in the US seems to be religion. While it would be patently wrong to say all or even most republicans in the US are all Bible thumpers who believe in issues only because of their religion, it WOULD be fair that all of these same extreme bible-thumpers tend to always be republican. By the way, this is no way meant to attack or denegrate the millions of moderate religious people (who form the vast majority of the faithful) in the US at all, only the extreme fanatics who still want to take Darwinism out of schools, to say nothing of condoms.
It seems that conservativism appeals to the religious conservatives. Liberalism on the other hand, while it also has its share of faithful, does not tend to represent that extreme.
Issues like removing God from the pledge of alleigance, and abortion (which moreoften then not is a religious issue)and tend to be split down democrat and republican lines.
Now of course much of this may be due to Bush himself, who has done far more to appeal to the religious right then any of his predecessors, as is shown in his speech