Is the term 'LIBERAL' imfammatory?

[Pacridge]

Well, yes but more aptly perhaps, one could say the term was not used so widely inaccurately until about that time.....

It seems to me that not that long ago I knew a lot of people who labeled themselves as "neo-cons." Now not so many. I think that's in part due to the misuse of the term. Same thing with the term liberal.

 

[Goobieman]

I am very proud to be liberal. To the freedom of choice and social progression. Cheers. :drink

I would agree - those are things to be proud of.

However, that's not what you get with Liberalism, at least as seen here.

Here, liberals only support the freedom of choice when they like the choices you can make -- don't argue that you should be able to choose whether or not you participate in Social Security, for example.

And as far as "social progression" - where has that "progress" manifested itself? What's changed over the last 30 years that can be called "progress"; how, specifically is that "progress" linked to Liberal ideals?

Liberals like to think they stand for High and Mighty ideals. Reality is a bit different.

 

[Kelzie]

I would agree - those are things to be proud of.

However, that's not what you get with Liberalism, at least as seen here.

Here, liberals only support the freedom of choice when they like the choices you can make -- don't argue that you should be able to choose whether or not you participate in Social Security, for example.

And as far as "social progression" - where has that "progress" manifested itself? What's changed over the last 30 years that can be called "progress"; how, specifically is that "progress" linked to Liberal ideals?

Liberals like to think they stand for High and Mighty ideals. Reality is a bit different.

Civil rights movement...women's right to choose...all liberal movements. Nobody likes a hater.

 

[Goobieman]

Civil rights movement...women's right to choose...all liberal movements. Nobody likes a hater.

In the last 30 years?

Isn't it hard to argue that you're "progressive" when you can't show the progress you've made?

 

[Kelzie]

In the last 30 years?

Isn't it hard to argue that you're "progressive" when you can't show the progress you've made?

Because all of a sudden it's not progress when it's in the last 50 years.:roll:

What liberals stand for is progressive. It doesn't matter if our stances are enacted, they're still progressive.

 

[Goobieman]

Because all of a sudden it's not progress when it's in the last 50 years.:roll:

What liberals stand for is progressive. It doesn't matter if our stances are enacted, they're still progressive.

Seems that when you no longer progress, you're no longer progressive, you're stagnant.

"Progressive" is another one of those 'claim the high ground' terms -- the liberal agenda isnt inherently "progress", its simply "change from what was". Said change is only "progress" if you agree with it.

In practice, "progressives" are socialists that don't have the courage to call themselves that which they really are.

 

[Kelzie]

Seems that when you no longer progress, you're no longer progressive, you're stagnant.

"Progressive" is another one of those 'claim the high ground' terms -- the liberal agenda isnt inherently "progress", its simply "change from what was". Said change is only "progress" if you agree with it.

In practice, "progressives" are socialists that don't have the courage to call themselves that which they really are.

That is ridiculous. Liberals believe in progressive reforms. The fact that these reforms are not being passed in no way affects the fact that they are progressive and liberals stand for them.

Say liberals controlled the government and were passing their reforms. Would conservatives no longer stand for conservatism because things were not staying the same? That's just silly.

 

[Goobieman]

That is ridiculous. Liberals believe in progressive reforms. The fact that these reforms are not being passed in no way affects the fact that they are progressive and liberals stand for them.

They stand for change from the status quo based on their ideology. That change is only "progressive" and "reform" if you happen to buy into that ideology.

As far as still trying to make those changes - you're right.
I amend my statement to say that the "progressives" have been pretty stagnant, and they havent been able to achieve much "progress" in the last 30 years.

 

[RightinNYC]

I love it, gardner has a very good, very well thought-out reply, talking about the mischaracterization of neocons as social/religious conservatives, and then billo follows it up with "The neocons are christian mullahs"

 

[Kelzie]

They stand for change from the status quo based on their ideology. That change is only "progressive" and "reform" if you happen to buy into that ideology.

Well sure. I doubt racists/sexists thought the Civil Rights movement was progressive. Likewise, homophobes think gay marriage isn't. Doesn't really change the fact that it is in fact a change. I've personally never bought into the definition of liberals as wanting change and conservatives as wanting the status quo. Definitions that change are not true definitions, in my opinion. I believe liberals stand for freedom both on the social level and economically, like libertarians. Conservatives stand for government control. Suppose that'd be closest to fascism. Todays Democrats are social liberals and economic conservatives (you are correct, they're just moderate socialists) while Republicans are social conservatives and economic liberals. It makes much more sense than defining someones position based off of change.

As far as still trying to make those changes - you're right.
I amend my statement to say that the "progressives" have been pretty stagnant, and they havent been able to achieve much "progress" in the last 30 years.

I'll accept that. The last thing they accomplished was environmental regulations in the 70s.

 

[Goobieman]

I believe liberals stand for freedom both on the social level and economically, like libertarians....Todays Democrats are social liberals

I dont see it.
They want to shape society through government -- force people to conform to their ideals throug taxation, regulation, and legislative force.
That's not "freedom" by any stretch - with them, you only get the choices they want you to have.

 

[DivineComedy]

I think some people who choose to define themselves as conservative are afraid to call themselves liberals because the way some “liberals” define what it is to be “liberal.” The founding fathers were liberal. When I see a picture of Che Guevara on the “liberal” wall or t-shirt I know they are my enemy, end of discussion on that one!

Consider the breakdown of the “public use” decision:

“Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Sorry, but on that one I just have to vote for an O’Connor, a Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

Then there is the broadminded ignorant “liberal” that defines themselves as a liberal, that is a Democrat, that says the following when asked questions about whether the civilian disguised terrorists on 911, and the ever popular civilian disguised suicide bombers of Hamas, are playing by the rules of warfare:

“ 2). Why not go on record as to whether you agree with your ‘liberal‘ comrade that Osama is ‘playing by the rules of warfare?’ What about Hamas and other terrorist groups?

This one, believe it or not is fairly straight forward... Terrorist groups fight with the weapons they have available... Hamas and other groups don't have airplanes, tanks and the like to fight the Israelis... So they use the only weapons avaiable to them.... The problem I have is the killing of innocent people... If they want to blow up the Israeli military.. GO FOR IT!!”

I juxtaposed our soldiers for theirs. Another “liberal” with a Che Guevara picture on the wall, that had a special on HBO last month, stood there with a vacuous look and did not confront the domestic Muslim that said an F-14 was like a suicide bomber; if the F-14 is like a suicide bomber when the F-14 has an IFF, then we only know to shoot the Muslim in civilian clothes then ask questions later.

Then there is the “liberal” that looks all doe eyed (like those lining the streets when Hitler’s car passed by) when these two things were said:

“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...on.transcript/

As if the international criminal court would not be treasonous to the Declaration of Independence principle of “consent of the governed!“ And the international community didn’t consider what Kerry and Clinton said to be INSULTING? What do we have to do bribe the {insert most foul cuss words imaginable} to get the {insert another set of most foul cuss words imaginable} to fight the war on terror???

So the conservative cannot be a “liberal,” but the conservative whose grandfather had a picture of FDR over the mantle can hope for many things the over regulated economy can’t always afford, like:

1) Gay “eunuchs” (that Jesus loves) getting married, to socially stop promiscuous fruit loops of fluid transfer, for the prevention of diseases.

2) Social programs like Social Security, real mental health care that doesn‘t turn them loose too soon, and public housing that isn‘t a crime infested sardine can but real houses, and socialized medicine for when the cost makes it impossible for the private sector to cut it…

3) Public works and economic policies to deal with economic catastrophes like irrational exuberance (great depression), or household management that is impossible when usurers secretly fornicate with spouses to run up a crushing debt, or for prevention and relief of manmade and natural catastrophes like 911 and hurricanes...

4) Environmental programs to protect and clean the environment and to prevent global warming, or cooling, caused by mankind.

5) Public transportation, like bullet trains all over the country to every Capital city, and totally subsidized so the cost of going from point “A” to “B“ cost no more than to drive the average used car the distance.

6) Subsidizing farming and other businesses where appropriate.

7) Future taxation of net worth for redistribution to the potential worker that was replaced by the artificially intelligent robotic principle means of production...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Add to those losing programs, the losing bids of liberal candidates in seeking the presidency of the United States, and you’ll soon get a clearer picture as to why my creative genius ’libloser’ term makes sense, and makes for a much better platform in which to debate politics in a constructive manner.

Fascinating.
I'm not sure I've ever seen name-calling considered genius before. Calling folks names is more often associated with the schoolyard behavior of children rather than the genius of adult expression in the arena of ideas.
To each his own I suppose.

But, in any case, by your own admission the term libloser is designed to inflame. Calling members libloser is not an example of civil discourse. While you may find flaming to be an example of debating "politics in a constructive manner" DP does not. DP's position on flaming is unlikely to change. I hope you can come to accept this and will continue to participate at DP in a civil manner.

 

[Kelzie]

I dont see it.
They want to shape society through government -- force people to conform to their ideals throug taxation, regulation, and legislative force.
That's not "freedom" by any stretch - with them, you only get the choices they want you to have.

Those aren't liberals, they're Democrats. Did you read my post at all?

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't think the word liberal is inflammatory and am puzzled why liberal shy away from being identified as such.........The only thing I can think of is being liberal associates one with failed social programs, tax raisers, and people that have disdain for our military.......I am not saying all liberals are that way but I beleive the majority are............

Liberals have a new buzzword.........Its called progressives.........

 

[StillPhil]

This is not what "liberal" means in the Modern American context..

The Modern Americal liberal is a socialist who wholly rejects ideas other than his own. He supports failed and/or failing social/social spending programs and refuses to consider any proposals to fix them - other than raising taxes amd/or cutting non-social spending.

In that he resists change to his pet programs (and ideas), he is easily as conervative as he claims the conervative is.

:doh You can not change the definition of a word based on your own interpretation of Modern American Context. Thats as absurd as saying, "The word Conservative (in the Modern American Context, of course) is a person who agrees with the President no matter what he does."

 

[mpg]

That is ridiculous. Liberals believe in progressive reforms. The fact that these reforms are not being passed in no way affects the fact that they are progressive and liberals stand for them.

Say liberals controlled the government and were passing their reforms. Would conservatives no longer stand for conservatism because things were not staying the same? That's just silly.

Conservatives want change when they're not getting their way, and they want no change when they are getting their way. Liberals are the same.

 

[Kelzie]

Conservatives want change when they're not getting their way, and they want no change when they are getting their way. Liberals are the same.

I know. That's why I disagree with that definition. It's defining liberals/conservatives on the rate of change axes which is just silly because a progressive/liberal one day could be a conservative the next. I much prefer discussing liberals and conservatives in terms of how much they want the government involved in either the economy or the society. Hence, Democrats are social liberals but economic conservatives while Republicans are social conservatives but economic liberals. Nice, simple, and doesn't change depending on what law's been passed.

 

[Navy Pride]

:doh You can not change the definition of a word based on your own interpretation of Modern American Context. Thats as absurd as saying, "The word Conservative (in the Modern American Context, of course) is a person who agrees with the President no matter what he does."

Well I am a Conservative and I don't agree with a lot of things President Bush does........So much for that theory.......:roll:

 

[FallingPianos]

Democrats are social liberals but economic conservatives while Republicans are social conservatives but economic liberals. Nice, simple, and doesn't change depending on what law's been passed.

sinse when are democrats economic conservatives? put them in power and they spend just as much as the republicans currently do. they only complain about fiscal responsibility when the republicans are in power. I will say this though: at least they are more willing to pay for their expenses.

libertarians are truely economic conservatives and social liberals. not democrats.

 

[Kelzie]

sinse when are democrats economic conservatives? put them in power and they spend just as much as the republicans currently do. they only complain about fiscal responsibility when the republicans are in power. I will say this though: at least they are more willing to pay for their expenses.

libertarians are truely economic conservatives and social liberals. not democrats.

Only if you use the screwed up American definition. Think about it. Social liberals stand for less intervention from the government...but for some reason economic liberals stand for more? It makes no sense. In the rest of the world, the libertarian party is the liberal party. From wiki, here's the definition of liberal economics:

The liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics begun in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith. It is associated with the political ideology of classical liberalism. The concept of economic liberalism or market liberalism underpinned the move towards a free market capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system.

Private property and individual contracts form the basis of the liberal theory of economics. The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, and that allowing them to do so without any restrictions will produce the best results, provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.

This implies that the privileges and restrictions should be abolished and everybody should have the freedom to choose a profession, sell and buy, make contracts etc. as long as all participants are voluntary. Every restriction reduces the set of alternatives and thus often forces people to choose less beneficial alternatives

It's what we call economic conservatism. Makes no sense.

 

[FallingPianos]

Only if you use the screwed up American definition. Think about it. Social liberals stand for less intervention from the government...but for some reason economic liberals stand for more? It makes no sense. In the rest of the world, the libertarian party is the liberal party. From wiki, here's the definition of liberal economics:



It's what we call economic conservatism. Makes no sense.

I was just using the commonly understood definition. under the definition given, I dont know how you could possibly call modern republicans economic liberals.

 

[Kelzie]

I was just using the commonly understood definition. under the definition given, I dont know how you could possibly call modern republicans economic liberals.

It's only common to the US. And it makes no sense, so I refuse to use it.

Meh. The Republicans used to be. Now they're some sort of bastardization of laissez faire and protection for big business.

 

[Hoot]

sinse when are democrats economic conservatives? put them in power and they spend just as much as the republicans currently do. they only complain about fiscal responsibility when the republicans are in power. I will say this though: at least they are more willing to pay for their expenses.

Touche'. That says it all...liberals expect us to pay for their spending and not pass it on to future generations.

 

[Goobieman]

Touche'. That says it all...liberals expect us to pay for their spending and not pass it on to future generations.

Only if history starts in 1998.
Before that, liberals didnt give a hoot in hell about deficits, and the only reason they care about them now is because a Republican is in the White House.