posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:59 PM
For the most part, it seems that liberals and democrats went hand in hand. Oddly enough, most neocons are actually liberals with a different name.
Liberals, as I see it, are more 'for/of the people'. They are for more big government control and regulation of larger entities (social groups,
corporations, etc), higher taxes (to fund more socialist style policies), and are generally concerned more with individuals and underdog/minority
groups. There is a focus on personal entitlement.
Now, liberalism is not bad, and it is necessary and would work out great in a two party system if done correctly.
Where i see things go wrong is the radicalization of general liberalism. Welfare can be a 'good thing'(tm) but in its current state, it is all too
inclusive. it is too easy to get on welfare and there is no reason to get out of it. I always took welfare as a 'oh hey, you tripped, let me help you
back on your feet. ok good, goodbye' rather than 'oh hey, you tripped, stay there and have cookies until you feel like getting up'. When it comes
to underdog/minority groups, it becomes all about them to the exclusion of the majority, and the majority has to kowtow to the minority, especially
via legislation. Taxes raise up and it is to support the 'less fortunate' portion, and there is no issue in the radical liberal's mind that many
people, while paying for these programs will never be allowed to make use of them. That whole mortgage/loan thing, forcing banks to more or less give
loans to anyone that can sign their name? that is a liberal style program. Where there is a large bit on self entitlement, it falls far short on
personal responsibility, because that might interfere with their entitlement, but we see where that gets us.
I tend to see a lot of radical liberals as idealists and academics, generally out of touch with society despite their information. Radical
conservatives are the same way, just a different bubble. Theory vs practice.
Generally, liberalism has always meant 'change' in large shifts and hang right out there on the edge of things, and at times, wants change just for
the sake of change.
if this were an ideal world, between liberals and conservatives (i guess you'd have to see my definition on a conservative first), conservatives
would be more like the executives and higher ups, with a small liberal advisory panel included.. and the liberals would be more on the
supervisor//boss level. Generally, conservatives are good at steering, and do things top down, liberals are good at getting people themselves going
esp. from the bottom up.
Oddly, I have seen this kind of setup work wonderfully in companies, but not the other way around (liberals lead, conservatives 'make it so') it
actually ended up being way too restrictive!