'Liberal' in America

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Generally I usually think of it as shorthand for 'bleeding heart liberal'. I tend to just use leftist though, lest someone think I'm expecting Democrats to be pro liberty in some way. OK, Dems are definitely pro sexual liberty and pro fetus extermination, but apart from that, the dominant strain of leftism in the US isn't in favor of economic liberty, free exercise of religion, controversial speech, individual self defense, etc.

While 'liberal' is used as shorthand for 'bleeding heart liberal' that in itself needs further unpacking. In America, certain groups of conservatives use 'liberal' as a pejorative for a person who will bring about a slippery-slope moral decay of America through their 'radical' changes in primarily social issues (feminism, race/ethnicity, LGBT, etc.), albeit issues that have economic implications in their problems and solutions.

[DanteGabriel]

Deep substantive criticism or lazy ad hominen? We report, you decide!

I gave your dogshit post exactly as much effort as it deserved, but here, I'll give you the substance you requested.

Speaking for the dominant leftists... (that sounds so sexy, but maybe it's just because I'm a Commie pervert)

OK, Dems are definitely pro sexual liberty

Indeed. As I type, I am sodomizing an albino dwarf.

and pro fetus extermination

Also doing that right now. Using the dwarf's fist in amazingly creative ways.

the dominant strain of leftism in the US isn't in favor of economic liberty

Word. I am in favor of one wage for everyone, as determined by the government, regardless of individual aptitude and skill.

free exercise of religion

That's right! That's why we leftists are trying so hard to stop a mosque from being built near Ground Zero, and are working so hard to alienate Muslims...

Oh, wait.

controversial speech

I'd talk about how much I hate controversial speech except, even in sarcasm, this too fucking vague and asinine a point for me to pretend to be dumb enough to address.

individual self defense, etc.

Yes. I don't think anyone should have any weapons, ever, except for criminals, who should be handed government-supplied cudgels to commit their crimes with, and then be given government-mandated hugs by their victims.

The blindingly obvious failure of 'liberals' is that they think that people in general are too broken to function happily without massive government intervention. But the government is staffed by the same imperfectable, mostly clueless people following orders from other mostly clueless people who are also power hungry to boot.

Actually a lot of the government (and Congress) is filled with morons who bought the Reaganite snake oil that "government is the problem" and promptly started governing according to that belief.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

The founding father's, if I remember, were your definition of Liberal, what is considered today's conservative.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

McBigski was on the right track. The U.S. was born as almost the idealized classic liberal state in the Lockian sense. It had minimal government and maximum liberty with the exception of the peculiar institution of slavery. But other than that, the U.S. was extremely "liberal". Since that time, though, we've drifted more and more towards a less classically liberal society. So in the U.S., much of "conservativism" is seeking to conserve that governmental mininmalism, and "liberals" are the ones seeking to move towards a different understanding of the role of government.

In Europe, on the other hand, that pure classic liberal state wasn't really ever achieved because it had nobility and the associated social/economic rigidity that came with it. So in some sense, your "liberals" in Europe never quite achieved the "liberal" ideal what the U.S. had after the Revolution. So the term retains more of its original meaning in the context of advocating certain changes -- "liberalizaing" -- to create that "liberal" society..

[Shael]

-Redacted-

Nevermind. I'm not interested in correcting people, and I've already started to fall into it in this thread. Carry on.

[DanteGabriel]

The founding father's, if I remember, were your definition of Liberal, what is considered today's conservative.

The "founding fathers" were as diverse in opinion as our current members of government. Any attempt to claim the "founding fathers" for one modern side or the other simply reveals that the person making the claim doesn't know shit about shit.

[Asarlai]

The founding father's, if I remember, were your definition of Liberal, what is considered today's conservative.

The founding fathers' what? Their slaves may have favored liberals...

[Swordfish]

Government is filled with the rich, and is often corrupt. However, where government's power is rolled back, the private sector takes over. The government is democratic (hence the "public sector"), whereas the private sector is controlled by an economic oligarchy of the rich. By rolling back democratic government power, you are taking away power from the people and giving it to the few rich leaders of the economy.

So next time you want to say "Let's shrink the government" instead say "Let's take away power from the people."

It's a little hard to parse this argument when you more or less admitted in the opening that the government is also more or less controlled by an oligarchy of the rich.

Particularly since you ignore the advantages that a government has in being able to inflict force and coercion on the populace.

[Asarlai]

It's a little hard to parse this argument when you more or less admitted in the opening that the government is also more or less controlled by an oligarchy of the rich.

Yeah, it is, but at least that oligarchy of the rich has to deal with a voting public. Personally, I say tear down the economic system and build it anew; a democratic economy would provide for a more democratic government. Not that we should accept the rule of a state.

But that's why I'm not a "liberal," but rather a "communist." Well, that and the whole abortion thing.

Particularly since you ignore the advantages that a government has in being able to inflict force and coercion on the populace.

Last I checked, the liberals are the ones who want to shrink the military, which is a pretty large force for "inflict[ing] force and coercion on the populace."

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

The "founding fathers" were as diverse in opinion as our current members of government. Any attempt to claim the "founding fathers" for one modern side or the other simply reveals that the person making the claim doesn't know shit about shit.

I never claimed it to be 100% true. I never said I was right. I do believe they were more on the socialist side of what we consider it to be today. A large message board post count doesn't make you right, either, but your attitude does make you sound like a complete dick.

Any first year Political Science college course goes over this.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/founding-fathers-liberal

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0601-01.htm

http://www.liepie.com/grannys-blog/148-thomas-jefferson-liberal-menace

http://themessagingproject.com/Jefferson.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers.php

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/were-the-founding-fathers-socialists/question-1360877/

http://preesi.lefora.com/2010/04/14/our-socialist-founding-fathers/

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

The founding fathers' what? Their slaves may have favored liberals...

Lincoln was a Republican, yet freeing saves would be considered a "liberal" act, today. Somewhere along the line, labels and definitions according to political party, have been...swapped.

[Brienne the Beauty]

And like most inexcusable bullshit, there are kernels of truth in there. Clearly, American liberals want a very big government

I'm not sure that's true at all. For instance in the gay marriage debate, both left and right frame it as wanting freedom, and wanting the government to get out of their business. They just define that freedom ... differently.

It is really a right-wing straw-man to say that liberals love big government. To hear right-wingers talk you'd think left-wingers never met a law or tax they didn't like. But left-wingers don't really like paying tax or being told what to do any more than right-wingers. They just have different priorities about what taxes and laws are appropriate.

[Asarlai]

Lincoln was a Republican, yet freeing saves would be considered a "liberal" act, today. Somewhere along the line, labels and definitions according to political party, have been...swapped.

My point was that citing the "founding fathers" (well, some of them) as being on your side isn't too great an idea, when they were all rich and often slave owners.

As for Lincoln freeing the slaves, yes, that was a liberal action. Democrat/Republican have switched Liberal/Conservative. It mainly happened between the two Roosevelts (trust-busting Republican Teddy Roosevelt and New Deal Democrat FDR), but of course it isn't so simple, and neither of those men embody what "Liberal" means today, or not fully at least. And, of course, Southern Democrats persisted in being conservative, until LBJ handed the South over to the Republicans with the Civil Rights laws. LBJ himself had been known to oppose civil rights at times while a senator, and certainly qualified as a conservative Democrat in other regards, but the Civil Rights Act was something he had to finish right after Kennedy died, as his legacy, and he really did seem to come around, even going so far as saying (non-seriously, but angrily) that he was going to make the n-word illegal because that's all the anti-civil-rights politicians ever said when he talked to them.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

A large message board post count doesn't make you right, either, but your attitude does make you sound like a complete dick.

DanteGabriel? Despite the satanic avatar, he's a real lamb.

Any first year Political Science college course goes over this.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/founding-fathers-liberal

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0601-01.htm

http://www.liepie.com/grannys-blog/148-thomas-jefferson-liberal-menace

http://themessagingproject.com/Jefferson.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers.php

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/were-the-founding-fathers-socialists/question-1360877/

http://preesi.lefora.com/2010/04/14/our-socialist-founding-fathers/

This was certainly not covered in any of my political science uni courses. My Poli Sci 101 equivalent class covered national trends in political public opinion, including politicians and campaigns. It was basically James Stimson's course on his book Tides of Consent. I cannot recall the founding fathers being mentioned too much in any of my poli sci courses except maybe Modern Political Thought, which covered the influential political philosophers from the 17th-19th century.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

My point was that citing the "founding fathers" (well, some of them) as being on your side isn't too great an idea, when they were all rich and often slave owners.

As for Lincoln freeing the slaves, yes, that was a liberal action. Democrat/Republican have switched Liberal/Conservative. It mainly happened between the two Roosevelts (trust-busting Republican Teddy Roosevelt and New Deal Democrat FDR), but of course it isn't so simple, and neither of those men embody what "Liberal" means today, or not fully at least. And, of course, Southern Democrats persisted in being conservative, until LBJ handed the South over to the Republicans with the Civil Rights laws. LBJ himself had been known to oppose civil rights at times while a senator, and certainly qualified as a conservative Democrat in other regards, but the Civil Rights Act was something he had to finish right after Kennedy died, as his legacy, and he really did seem to come around, even going so far as saying (non-seriously, but angrily) that he was going to make the n-word illegal because that's all the anti-civil-rights politicians ever said when he talked to them.

I'm trying answer the OP's question. His definition and thoughts are, in my opinion, correct.

I get called a commie liberal in my family more than I care, from one side of my family. I also have very liberal friends who think it isn't right to want drug test welfare recipients, but I do. I also find my liberal friends to be very hypocritical when they are for abortion rights (which I am as well), but oppose the death penalty (which I am for).

(speaking of LBJ, my sig is an LBJ quote and one of my faves, ever).

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

DanteGabriel? Despite the satanic avatar, he's a real lamb.

This was certainly not covered in any of my political science uni courses. My Poli Sci 101 equivalent class covered national trends in political public opinion, including politicians and campaigns. It was basically James Stimson's course on his book Tides of Consent. I cannot recall the founding fathers being mentioned too much in any of my poli sci courses except maybe Modern Political Thought, which covered the influential political philosophers from the 17th-19th century.

How old are you? I learned this at Loyola Marymount in 1999. It's something that stuck. Maybe it was the professor. I dunno. After switching from pre-law to bio psych, I didn't take many other classes in this area.

[Galactus]

My point was that citing the "founding fathers" (well, some of them) as being on your side isn't too great an idea, when they were all rich and often slave owners.

As for Lincoln freeing the slaves, yes, that was a liberal action. Democrat/Republican have switched Liberal/Conservative. It mainly happened between the two Roosevelts (trust-busting Republican Teddy Roosevelt and New Deal Democrat FDR), but of course it isn't so simple, and neither of those men embody what "Liberal" means today, or not fully at least. And, of course, Southern Democrats persisted in being conservative, until LBJ handed the South over to the Republicans with the Civil Rights laws. LBJ himself had been known to oppose civil rights at times while a senator, and certainly qualified as a conservative Democrat in other regards, but the Civil Rights Act was something he had to finish right after Kennedy died, as his legacy, and he really did seem to come around, even going so far as saying (non-seriously, but angrily) that he was going to make the n-word illegal because that's all the anti-civil-rights politicians ever said when he talked to them.

LBJ was pretty much the closest thing to a social-democrat the US ever had. The Great Society was his real pet-project though, not the Civil Rights act.

[Galactus]

McBigski was on the right track. The U.S. was born as almost the idealized classic liberal state in the Lockian sense. It had minimal government and maximum liberty with the exception of the peculiar institution of slavery. But other than that, the U.S. was extremely "liberal". Since that time, though, we've drifted more and more towards a less classically liberal society. So in the U.S., much of "conservativism" is seeking to conserve that governmental mininmalism, and "liberals" are the ones seeking to move towards a different understanding of the role of government.

In Europe, on the other hand, that pure classic liberal state wasn't really ever achieved because it had nobility and the associated social/economic rigidity that came with it. So in some sense, your "liberals" in Europe never quite achieved the "liberal" ideal what the U.S. had after the Revolution. So the term retains more of its original meaning in the context of advocating certain changes -- "liberalizaing" -- to create that "liberal" society..

Except that the US never really had that either. By Jefferson's time there are still voting rights restrictions in most states, by the time those are removed we're already having the government getting involved in all sorts of things (like canal and railroad building)

I think it's questionable to equate Jefferson's ideas (a civic republican liberalism based on smallholding farmers) with the manchester school (an urban liberalism based on industrial capitalism)

Mind, Jefferson was a bit of a kook in general.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

How old are you? I learned this at Loyola Marymount in 1999. It's something that stuck. Maybe it was the professor. I dunno. After switching from pre-law to bio psych, I didn't take many other classes in this area.

Why should my age matter? I can assure you that I doubt our disparity in ages would make a substantial difference, assuming it would as a variable. I certainly learned much of what you linked, but it was not taught in my uni poli sci courses. Most of this was covered in my high school US history and US civics courses.

[Merentha]

McBigski was on the right track.

Yeah, its really hard to not take liberal as an insult when you also believe that liberals don't rest happy until they've killed at least two fetuses a day.

The U.S. was born as almost the idealized classic liberal state in the Lockian sense. It had minimal government and maximum liberty with the exception of the peculiar institution of slavery.

Only if you were a white, landowning male, but I suppose that can be written off as an anachronism. However, while it might have started that way, the industrial revolution helped concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy disproportionally in ways that lead to massively reduced freedoms for everyone BUT those rich. In my opinion, naturally.