'Liberal' in America

[The Fan]

I don't really like the two-party categorization in the US, as it makes people think they have to conform to everything their party says, and when there are two warring factions, it's harder to compromise. It's much easier to reason with someone when you disagree if you have agreed with them on other things.

Quite right, you get the option of the group that doesn't really fit your views, or the group that REALLY doesn't fit your views...

Combine that fact with a nearly endless supply of sheeple, and you have the political machinations of the US.

Is it any wonder then that some people develop backup plans? <_<

[Xenophon]

As Kosciuszko said, words change their meaning and have different meanings in different contexts. Just in the American usage of the term, there's a big difference between saying "I'm a liberal" and "I take a liberal position on that issue". And that's not even getting into other usages like "liberal arts" or "liberal translation". There's no "correct" definition of liberalism that everyone should follow.

[Exa Inova]

Mark my words:

In a few hours the board will be flooded by those meaning stealing yanks. They will take this thread and run with it. And once we enlightened euro commies and aussies log in again the conclusion will be that gay marriage and abortion is the reason gun control will win/lose the war on terror.

As for why american twist and pervert the meaning of the word 'liberal', I think it because they translate it as 'anything goes'. You know, men marrying men (oh the horror) and prying guns from LIVING fingers (the apocalypse has come!).

[Shael]

...the conclusion will be that gay marriage and abortion is the reason gun control will win/lose the war on terror.

Win or lose, are you disputing this? You dirty commie prostitute.

[Law Lord]

It is pretty sad. In America, we even have people like, say, Glenn Beck who regularly attempts to link American liberalism with Nazism. I'm not exactly sure how he gets there. Perhaps because the Nazi party had the word socialism within it? As if evil people would never co opt a word with no intention of basing their ideology around it. I don't know. I'm admittedly out of my element in trying to understand things like that. I'm also unsure as to how someone can be a communist and a nazi at the same time. But that's not the point.

Now that is even more silly than calling liberalism communist. I cant believe populist gimmicks like this actually work.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Hey mate, where did you get this from? Did you make it up yourself or is it from a book, movie or something else?

This is where American liberalism somewhat departs from classical liberalism, but not entirely. Liberals in the United States basically assert that personal rights and freedoms can only be upheld through some form of government intervention. It still supports a free market but grasps the idea that a completely free market can lead to its own destruction (whether this is true or not I'm not debating- I'm just pretty sure that's the assertion). I could be mistaken that this is the departure point between classical and American liberalism, though. Just my own supposition.

Extreme rhetoric in politics is pretty much an American tradition. Check out the election of 1800.

That is a good summary. I have never thought of it in those terms because i basically like the concept of classical liberalism. Regulation is necessary because not everyone is rational. A system without government would still have people committing acts of fraud and barony. I believe modern liberals like Rawls (I think?) follow this strain of thought. Oh and i will check out the election of 1800. Should be good.

Thanks for the info guys and girls, this is really helping me develop an understanding of liberalism in America. There has been some thoughtful and insightful ideas and issues raised.

[Shael]

Hey mate, where did you get this from? Did you make it up yourself or is it from a book, movie or something else?

My fellow male boarder with a gender neutral name is quoting a poem by Martin Niemoller.

[Guest Raidne]

Nah, Rawls assumes reasonable actors (slightly distinct from "rational") in the body politic.

[Exa Inova]

Hey mate, where did you get this from? Did you make it up yourself or is it from a book, movie or something else?

I wrote that one day while on the john......

[Asarlai]

we enlightened euro commies

Well I'm a commie on the Western side of the Atlantic.

My fellow male boarder with a gender neutral name is quoting a poem by Martin Niemoller.

Yep. Though technically "Asarlai" is masculine...

[Shael]

Yep. Though technically "Asarlai" is masculine...

Not in the U.S. of A son!

[Galactus]

Do I need to go through the classic tripartite definition again? Okay, the simple version:

Basically, liberals in the classical sense were opposed to the early-modern state in much of what it did (what the early-modern state did was essentially make wars and serve as a money-making machine for the aristocracy) a lot of what these early liberals wanted was for the state to stop doing things (since what the state DID could basically boil down to "beat people up and steal their stuff."*)

This lead to various revolutions, the most famous happened in the US and in France. In the US these classical liberals won, in France they lost, but managed to spread their views around anyway.

Now, to oppose these liberals a bunch of people started formulating a counter-ideology. The most famous of these is arguably Edmund Burke, but ol' Hegel is also relevant here. Their basic contention was that the liberals (who were fairly into the entire "society and people in it are pretty rational and so if we just leave them alone things will wokr out okay) were unrealistic, and didn't take into account the way society had actually developed. They figured that aristocracy, keeping people in their proper place etc. etc. was good, it had worked before and why throw away stuff that worked? They weren't neccessarily opposed to change (indeed, Hegel's entire dialectic is about change) but they thought it had to be formed out of experience and not dreamt up on the spot.

Since they were traditional they also tended to be religious, and since charity is a christian tradition they tended to vaguely support some kind of poor relief, at least to the deserving poor.

Now, in the time after the French Revolution some liberals actually got to try out their laissez-faire ideology. The thing is, while the ideology had essentially imagined a bunch of self-sufficient farmers doing their rugged individualism thing (check out Thomas Jefferson) what they actually got on their hands was industrial poverty. (Which they actually saw first hand, unlike rural poverty which was hidden away in villages and farmsteads far away from their gaze) This made some liberals (many of which, again, were also religious, although in europe they tended to be of the non-established churches... Which is part of the reason for their liberalism, since they wanted the state church to stop harassing them) to make some concessions, education was one of the first. (somewhat logical, it's hard to make anything of yourself without education, so in order to become rugged individualism some people might need a helping hand) a few other things. The foremost philosopher of this strand of social liberalism is J.S. Mill.

Note: "Social" in this sense refers to society/in common. Not to whatis known as "social liberties". Social liberals were social becuase they saw society as needing to work in common to secure fundamental liberties. Not becuase they were neccessarily socially liberal in the modern sense. (case in point, prohibition was largely the result of social liberals)

At the same time, many conservatives (as conservatives tends to do) adapted to industrial society. they were joined by some rich industrialists and some old aristocrats ended up in business. This closer coordination with business tended to make them more in favour of deregulation of economic affairs (since they now saw the benefits of it) they might still favour a strong army, an established church (or at least traditional religion) etc. but they were more willing to let economic deregulation happen (especially once they realized it wasn't neccessarily the end of their world, and that those filthy merchants were almost socially acceptable if they really wanted to)

Hence liberal conservatism.

Other conservatives though, still felt that the laissez-faire system was fairly destructive, especially of traditional institutions they held dear (religion, the monarchy, etc. etc.) they tended to want to safeguard these things, while at the same time also doing their christian duty for the poor. These became known as social conservatives (again, not because they were conservative on social issues, although they were, but becuase they favoured a social solution to the challenges of industrialization) the catholic church became especially active in this part, what with Catholic Social Thought being formulated at the time.

If you'll note, social conservatives and social liberals look kind of similar, the main difference being that social liberals tended to come from disestablished or minority churches (and thus had a stake in championing freedom of expression, religion, etc.) while social conservatives were not.

This interestingly enough makes catholics in the US largely support the democratic party. (Because they're a minority church) which is largely social-liberal.

What about the classical liberals you ask? Well, they tended to dwindle in this time-period. (turn of the century) partially becuase being a hard-assed ideologue (which maintaining laissez-faire in all aspects pretty much requires you to be) partially because they tended to get divided (those crying for business deregulation and those crying for free love and abolition of the state church tended to argue about priorities and then go off to join up with different groups) partially because in the early 20th and late 19th century there seems to be a lot of feeling that the state CAN do stuff. There seems to be a lot of evidence: It builds canals and railroads, in some places it establishes healthcare. WWI is kind of important there too, people figure if the state can raise and mobilize an entire population for total war, what could it do in peacetime? If we can send millions of young men off to die in the trenches, can't we send them off to solve social problems? Mass production of the fordist type also helps here, with workers becoming interchangeable and production skyrocketing becuase of it, people figure if economy of scale can be so useful on the corporate level, why not on the national one? There are still people fighting against it, but they're largely being overrun by collectivists of various political stripes. In some countries extremists (to the left, communists, or the right, fascists) or moderates (social liberals, social democrats or social conservatives)

Since economic deregulation pretty much loses steam as an ideological issue at this point (especially during the Great Depression), everyone basically touts various degrees of interventionism, "liberal" tends to largely refer to the social aspects in the US. In Europe liberals could still define themselves against socialist parties, so they managed to keep their lable. (Although the british Liberal Party, for instance, declined significantly in this era)

Then come the 1960's and 70's. The enthusiasm for state intervention has kind of worn off as people see the problems it brings. So there's a bit of a laissez-faire reawakening. (that gets into full(er) steam in the 80's) these new liberals are largely arguing against government intervention in the economy (since the social liberals kind of kept up the other kind of liberalism) and since there's already a "liberal" camp that they are opposed to, they sign up with the "conservatives". Hence why liberals are conservatives in the US.

* Tormund things this is still true.

[Galactus]

That's because the LibDems are a merger between liberals and social democrats. The social democrats (not left-wing liberals, that's an oxymoron), were dominant, and now the liberals are, temporarily.

Left-wing liberals isn't really an oxymoron, because what is "left" depends on where you're moving from.

To Ye Olde Feudal Monarchy anyone wanting say... Freedom to set up a shop without belonging to a guild, or freedom to talk smack about his Majesty, or so on would be a dangerous leftist kook.

There's also the usage of "liberals who are closer in their views to left-wing politics" versus "liberals who are closer in their views to right-wing politics", liberalism, like any other political ideology, is a spectrum after all.

[Asarlai]

Left-wing liberals isn't really an oxymoron, because what is "left" depends on where you're moving from.

"Those damn right-wing American liberals are screwing with my workers' revolution!"

I see your point.

[一方通行]

I'm also unsure as to how someone can be a communist and a nazi at the same time.

nazbols?

alternatively, anyone who adheres to a commie theory narrowly different from your own flavor of choice.

[Liffguard]

This is where American liberalism somewhat departs from classical liberalism, but not entirely. Liberals in the United States basically assert that personal rights and freedoms can only be upheld through some form of government intervention. It still supports a free market but grasps the idea that a completely free market can lead to its own destruction (whether this is true or not I'm not debating- I'm just pretty sure that's the assertion). I could be mistaken that this is the departure point between classical and American liberalism, though. Just my own supposition.

This basically highlights the differences between the two (broad- schools of liberalism in the UK. Classical liberalism, based on Locke, has already been covered. Limited government, laisez-faire economics, personal liberty. All based on the idea that people are rational, self-interested and self-motivated therefore maximum liberty is the most just and effective state of being for a country. Modern liberals, who arguably got going with David Lloyd-George, agree with these basic principles but define freedom differently. Classical liberals define freedom negatively, i.e. the absence of government constraints. Modern liberals assert that the absence of government is not the same as the absence of constraints e.g. someone born into an inner-city ghetto is constrained in a way someone born into a wealthy dynasty is not, regardless of government. Therefore they define freedom in positive terms i.e. the active empowerment of individuals to overcome social and economic constraints.

[awesome possum]

Now i am very curious about something. Apparently being described as a 'liberal' in America is like calling someone something terrible because it is a dirty word. My question is, why is that? Why would you describe liberals in a negative light?

In America the conservative party, the Republicans, are even more morally bankrupt than most political parties. Instead of attempting to combat their opponents on the issues, they've decided it's easier to play smear games and toss about insults.

Thus, liberal = bad word. That way, instead of being forced into an intelligent discussion/debate on the issues, they can throw out the word "liberal" as an excuse to avoid using anything resembling original thought.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

"Liberal" in the US used to mean folks like me, who favor extremely loose (to the point of not existing) social policy. As the 2 party system started coalescing around the Republican and Democratic Parties, the liberals mostly sided with the Democrats as they were the party who were generally favored less social restrictions based on moral or religious preference.

As time went on the Democratic party came to be taken over by a new kind of thought called progressivism, which favored broad state involvement in the economy and day-to-day lives of the citizenry. The liberals didn't like this too much, but when they left their badge name stayed with the party, and they were forced to adopt a new descriptor "libertarian". So liberal came to mean what most European (and Australian) folks would probably call a Social Democrat.

[Hereward]

Left-wing liberals isn't really an oxymoron, because what is "left" depends on where you're moving from.

True, I descended into hyperbole there! Though in my defence, the conflict in the LibDems does largely boil down to a dispute between economic liberals and social democrats, rather than right-wing and left-wing liberals.

[Xenophon]

In America the conservative party, the Republicans, are even more morally bankrupt than most political parties. Instead of attempting to combat their opponents on the issues, they've decided it's easier to play smear games and toss about insults.

Thus, liberal = bad word. That way, instead of being forced into an intelligent discussion/debate on the issues, they can throw out the word "liberal" as an excuse to avoid using anything resembling original thought.

Pots, Kettles? ;)

But leaving that aside, the OP gets that Rush Limbaugh types demonize their opponents. He wanted to understand why they use the word "liberal" to do so.

[awesome possum]

Pots, Kettles? ;)

Possibly. That's just me, though. I will gladly demonize anyone irresponsible, ignorant, or evil enough to gladly proclaim themselves Republican. I don't think there has been a concerted effort by an entire party and media corporation to demonize the other Republican party.

But leaving that aside, the OP gets that Rush Limbaugh types demonize their opponents. He wanted to understand why they use the word "liberal" to do so.

It just stuck at the time.