To Conservatives: Define Liberal

I was browsing wikipedia the other day, for god knows what reason, but I happened upon the entry for Liberalism. Here's an excerpt:



If you go on to read about Liberalism, it goes on to embrace Laissez-faire economics, which is a strong non-interference policy where events are allowed to take their own course.


I always hear conservatives talk about something being "too liberal," but I have no idea what that means.

So perhaps somebody can explain to me what their take on the word "liberal" means to them.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Kaytagg]

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

Liberal in America is different than Liberal anywhere else I think. To me a Liberal means you’re for big government, welfare programs, etc. A few years ago Liberal meant the Democrat party,(until Big Spending bush came around) so I guess Liberal means big spenders, loose with tax dollars, pushing on their version of Social redistribution, etc. In a nut shell socialism.

www.merriam-webster.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

Above is the definition of liberalism and conservativism from the merriam-webster dictionary. I only put that up there cause to me it is a more reliable source than wiki. If you read it, it sounds great. I would consider myself a liberal, by that definition. On the other hand, when talking about "liberalism" today in the context of politics, it happens to mean almost the complete opposite. Its almost like liberals follow Machiavelli's approach (ie, the ends justify the means) instead of allowing people to move towards social equality themselves. To me, the definitions really need to be forgot about in American politics, in fact, in all politics.

Its not really about what people believe in so much as in how it comes about. Most people, I assume, would agree with me that health care reform is much needed. Its just how we as individuals believe it should come about is how we fit into somebody else's definition of being a "liberal" or a "conservative".

If you believe that the government should tax people more so that everybody can get "free" healthcare provided and run by the government then you are labeled a "liberal". Yet, if you believe that everybody should pay their own way and use the free market as a way to implement policy then you are labeled a "conservative".

In all honesty, neither label really fits in my opinion. We should just stick to being considered either left-winged or right-winged in political ideology. Labels get people nowhere and can change anytime TPTB or the general populace wants. To me, both sides use "liberalism" and "conservativism" in their own way.

An example of this would be the left wanting to be "liberal" in bringing about change in health care thru the above mentioned way and then "preserve what is established" i.e., they will be conservatives if the fight ever turns to get rid of the health care bill that is being proposed. On the other hand, the right would like to be "liberal" in bringing about change in health care reform but at the same time "preserve what is established" allready, the insurance companies. But if the health care bill gets passed, then they will become liberal in trying to get rid of it. These labels are really a just a catch 22 because one minute you can be labeled a liberal and the next conservative (by definition only) if you are fighting to keep your policy and vice versa.

Mrhm.. Why are people so irate about welfare programs? I know it's an off topic question, but I've cited a few studdies (don't know how credible they really are) detailing America's welfare spending, and it's next to nothing.

The welfare we spend on people is next to nothing, that is. The welfare we spend on corporations is huge. I remember under a Republican government, when Exxon was setting a new record for profits made in a quarter (every quarter), Exxon was given 10 billion dollars. GIVEN. How do you explain that?

And what alternatives do you have to welfare? Would you rather have people stinking up the streets in a cardboard box? Stealing to feed their families? Makes no sense, if you ask me.

Todays liberals are yesterdays progressives, just under a new name.



Progressivism Wiki

-E-

liberal = socialist = communist = atheist = social evolutionist = anti-American

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

I definitely misuse the word in terms of historical or etymological context...but...I'm a big believer in the importance and explanatory power of how people actually do use words in their everyday life, and thinking about your question I use "liberal" specifically and almost inevitably on the following type of person ... someone who for (their own, usual, typical, natural) selfish reasons wants to either appear to be, or to try to be, or actually to be, unselfish...

The reasons for me using the word in this kinda apparently idiosyncratic way would be long and boring, but for sure that is the target group of persons on whom I actually do use it....I would never use "liberal" on someone, no matter how permissive or libertarian their stances, who was straightforwardly openly consistently selfish...there has to be some "too good" in the liberal, and they have to do things to others "for their own good" (i.e. the supposed or ostensible good of the others)...is how I use that word...

But I bet most other people don't use "liberal" my same way, fer sure...

And looking back, I see maybe I'm ambiguous...I'm not talking about seemingly altruistic self-sacrifice serving a group to which you do obviously belong, like soldiers or gang members dying for their affiliates...that's too self-interested still, there's not enough lion-lying-down-with-the-lamb-children's-puppet-show to make that scene be a liberal action, in most scenarios...hmm I guess I got to think about an actual definition for a few days...oh well...

Liberal as what it should be or liberal as what it is?

As it should be: natural liberty for all

As it is: liberal growth of government to impose a particular brand or style of "liberty" on most at the expense of some.

When I was a kid I figured I was ultra-liberal. I didnt want anyone imposing anything on me and I didnt want to impose anything on anyone else.

Imagine my shock.

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

To me welfare isnt actually that bad...if its used properly. I have known several people that have needed to get on a welfare program or welfare type program before and they really did need to do so. These people had full time jobs as well as a couple kids but werent making enough to put food on the table. They needed welfare to survive, really. But, what comes to mind when most people are demonizing welfare is the fact that it is highly abused and that it doesnt run out. Changes must be made in order for people to go along with it.

To alot of people, somebody on welfare is someone that doesnt have any will to work and just wants a free ride. That may be true in some cases, but in a lot of the cases it isnt. I dont mind some of my money being taken to help out some people for a LIMITED amount of time, who are working and just need a little extra helping hand and not speding the money on drugs or alcohol. The problem is that it is easily scammed and TPTB dont mind it being so on both sides. The left have votes in their pockets and the right have people to demonize. Nevermind the fact that people do need a helping hand from time to time or nevermind the fact that there are people scamming the system. Lets not fix that at all when we can just point our fingers and demonize or make people into slaves by having them totally rely on us as long as we have their vote. Its sad, really.

The same can be said about almost all of the government programs that are out there. Healthcare is a prime example. Lets not fix some of the fraud that is out there (suppossedly in the billions of $'s), lets just create more bureacracy so that we have someone to demonize or have a vote. If there is billions of $'s in fraud, then why dont we find that money first? If we cut out the suppossed $80 billion (www.politifact.com...) worth of fraud just from medicare, dont people think that the costs will go down, let alone if we cut out a large chunk of the fraud that is created by the insurance industry/patients/doctors etc?

You probably should have titled this thread whats the difference between the left and right winged political ideologies and how do they view government run programs in hindsight. Either way, the politicians are trying to just go with whats popular at the time in order to get a vote. The left is still using its push for the healthcare reform to secure its vote in 2010 while the right is demonizing it to get its vote. Either way nothing will be done that is good for the people as long as their is bureacracy involved in our lives and if we cant look past party lines and instead just look at the issues that are in front of us.

This is one of my favorite views in how D.C. works. (I dont know how to imbed so if somebody could for me that would help, thanks)

www.youtube.com...

Couldnt agree more. I was the same way up untill a couple years ago. Thought I was a liberal-democrat and had no idea what it actually meant in terms of today. In hindsight, i shoulda done that whole pesky "think before you speak" thing...damn that is such a pain sometimes

Hmm that sounds pretty backwards to me.

What's wrong with you people?

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

just because you read something on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

Welfare is a huge leech on the backside of the American Tax payers.

And my definition of a liberal is that it's the counterpart to being a conservative.

the ying to the yang.

Both are completely full of #*&* and both sides have plenty of ammunition to use against hte other side to get either side's neanderthals to follow their call of war.

Liberalism basically exists to stand against everything conservatism stands for.

And conservatism does the same thing to liberalism.

AT least thats how i view it.

In America..

LIBERAL does not apply to the Liberal Democrats any more than CONSERVATIVE applies to the Conservative Republicans.

Neither definition of either word applies to either party.

Un-indicted co-conspirators is a definition that should apply to both.

reply to post by mr-lizard

---

It's not just backwards, it's inflammatory, meaningless, illogical rhetoric. Not sure why the mods allow that type of thing.

All liberals are atheist? Atheists are unamerican? Liberalism is socialism? What the hell.

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

So you want the moderators to ban anyone who does not share your opinion? The relationships between these ideologies is well known. Liberals are for redistribution of wealth, bigger government, anti-free enterprise, which is socialism. They are also for the nationalization of business and control of all aspects of life, like health care, which is communism. They also try and remove any aspects of religion and morality from everyday life from making expressions of Christianity illegal to promoting a homosexual, drug infested culture where no one takes moral responsibility for their actions. Unless it is to support Sharia or some other form of anti-christian laws.

Sorry, but I still have the right to express my opinion and at ATS you can't get a post removed just because you don't agree with it.

From a personal perspective, (and to be fair more of an emotional view than perhaps a strictly intellectual one---although I think the facts still support my opinion), I sincerely tend to associate liberals with hypocrites.

To me, as a conservative black american, liberals DO seem hypocritical in the extreme, and seem to be driven more by a desire to feel good about themselves than to actually better or help anything. Its always, ALWAYS the 'other guys' life/lifestyle/customs or traditions that are 'in need' of the moral compass that most liberals somehow think they alone possess and the rest of us lack.

To me, it seems almost as if some psychological disorder must be in place, a drive to 'correct' things they , alone or in groups of others so afflicted, determine NEED corrected. It seems they must get some psychological boost or rush from championing some 'cause' .....while never, ever asking themselves if that same 'cause' really needs their type of 'help' to begin with.

Every liberal I have known(and thats a lot of them) without fail has shown a tendency to assume moral authority for this or that given cause based on blind arrogance alone in many cases. Often times while their personal life's were safely and completely removed from the cause/conflict in question. Its easy to be against someone else's views---its just hypocritical to not have a real solution for the issues you champion. Its hypocritical to fight for non-violence for instance.


Now, Im sure, somewhere, there is a pure and selfless liberalism and truly noble liberals that actually care about the things they would stand for...I would really like to think so.

But until I see and meet these lofty individuals, hypocrite is how I define liberal.


My opinion.

reply to post by superrat

---

That's true,
regardless of how close-minded and ignorant those opinions may be.

It's like saying that ALL conservatives are in favor of......

-Growing the size of government by 3 times their predecessor
-religious fanatical
-Lie to the Citizen
-Torture
-Ignore Constitution
-Ignore Bill of Rights
-Ignore Civil Rights
-Ignore Human Rights
-Like to kill brown people
-Against equal rights for women
-Against social security
-Against Medicare
-Against health insurance reform

I could go on forever, it doesn't make what I said true, after all it's just my opinion, right. I mean, why would anyone find that insulting or baiting.

Welfare is really used now as a catchall phrase for taxes that have been taken from those who earned it and given to those who didn't.

It is really as outdated in meaning as liberal because now they have welfare for billionaires whereby they print a trillion dollars here or there and give it to giant banks and businesses by the tens or hundreds of billions and keep them solvent so that they can screw the taxpayers some more.

In this light, the old meaning of the word welfare is a minor blip on the economic radar but it really still doesn't justify a country who's population has an income that is made up of 28% government handouts.

Liberalism is supposed to be few rules, small government and a fairly unregulated economy.

The same party, claiming to be made up of liberals is still pushing for bigger government, government control of all major portions of private sector business and an unrelenting and continuing control over our money,our news and even our daily activities.


[edit on 21-10-2009 by badgerprints]

Great thread, great concept.

I do not vote with a party. i vote with my conscience. if i were to be classified, i am a social moderate/fiscal conservative.

"Liberal", i believe, relates originally to fiscal policy. "Liberals" tended to promote policies that basically related to larger, more liberal spending plans. These plans usually included the socialist aspects of public programs, which caused the term "liberal" to mean less about fiscal policy, and more about social policy. This is where we are now.

To me, a "liberal", in modern definition, would be someone who supports a more socialistic domestic fiscal policy, and encourages more laws/less freedom.

It is a sad state of affairs that there is no party that truly represents fiscal conservatism. Everyone seems to want to fast track the bankrupting of our nations taxpayer.

... and meanwhile, elsewhere in the world "liberal" means quite the opposite of socialism.