Remember the liberal arts, now largely displaced by occupational training? That's what lies at the heart of being a liberal for me -- the triumph (or so we thought) of the liberal values of civilization over its illiberal excesses and, yes, atrocities. It's still a fight worth fighting, or what's a civilization for? Hurl what epithets you may, right and left. I'm liberal and proud of it.
14
Liberals are progressives. Conservatives are regressives. In this sense I consider myself liberal.
11
As an engineer I was trained to observe. As such, rather than some nuanced discussions of "liberalism" I prefer to seek the operational results of government and behavior. To this end, I quote Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism,
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Does this seem familiar?
It may shock some but there is a large monument to him in the Rome Opera House.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Does this seem familiar?
It may shock some but there is a large monument to him in the Rome Opera House.
9
I call myself liberal, not because of the type of coffee I drink, but because, as JFK defined it in a 1960 speech, I aspire to be “… someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
9
This reads even smugger than the liberals it bashes; like kids who abandon a band once they discover their parents like it.
Giving in to the Reagan-led conservative redefining of the term, rather than embracing it, seems like just what is apparently despised about liberals; but what do I know, I'm Canadian- and both a small l and big L Liberal!
Giving in to the Reagan-led conservative redefining of the term, rather than embracing it, seems like just what is apparently despised about liberals; but what do I know, I'm Canadian- and both a small l and big L Liberal!
4
I'm a proud lifelong liberal
https://youtu.be/nqrG9N-cmds
https://youtu.be/nqrG9N-cmds
4
Conservative with my money. Liberal with social programs. What does that make me ? A conservative liberal.
1
I don't know how to place this observation precisely in the context of the article but still believe it warrants saying. The traditional American version of liberalism (Frankin Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie, Goodwin Knight, Earl Warren, Pat Brown, Nelson Rockafellar) was principallly economic pragmatism, a rejection of the dogmatism of left or right in the economic realm, and tolerance of social difference. It was, given a growing economy and fair distance from foreign markets, a reasonable choice. Now all bets are off.
1
Liberalism is the engine of civilisation . Freud thought it was the process of group formation. http://chumbly.com/PanEros.html
3
"For the people who use these epithets, liberals are, basically, everyone who leans to the left: big-spending Democrats with their unisex bathrooms and elaborate coffee. " No, for those people, liberals are basically anyone who is not a far right winger.
3
Liberals here in Canada are want too serve everybody that appears to be a victim and in doing so have spread themselves thin to the point of being undefinable. If you can put a message on a t-shirt you will attract a liberal. That is how deep they are. I suspect the same; from what I have been reading, that's what is happening in the States. When you stand for everything you stand for nothing.
2
I find liberals to be the most generous people in the world.....with other folks money.
4
Here I am. Come and get me. I never left. I believe in government and I believe that helping people actually helps people. Damn right I'm a liberal. To my grave, baby.
17
My comments frighten the Times? I know using Chris Hedges name is a sure no publish, a shame for he was one of your best when employed there. His ‘liberal class’ of course fits The Times well enough, but sure he had others in mind as well.
1
As someone fluent in American Sign Language, I was surprised to see this picture of Franklin Roosevelt, making the sign for "loser". Given the content of the article, maybe it was actually appropriate. I agree with the author, that's why I eschew the term 'liberal'. I think Socialist works much better for me.
4
My understanding of the word is grounded in my understanding of history, specifically the movement of people and nations toward self-governance, founded on the understanding that government derives it power from the consent of the governed...not from a divine appointment.
I'm socialistic in that I believe that some of our greatest accomplishments have been through our collective efforts...working together to solve problems (roads, social justice, etc.). Conservatives want to keep "what is", I'm focused on "what can be"; "status quo" vs. "status grow".
I'm socialistic in that I believe that some of our greatest accomplishments have been through our collective efforts...working together to solve problems (roads, social justice, etc.). Conservatives want to keep "what is", I'm focused on "what can be"; "status quo" vs. "status grow".
7
After reading this, I am prouder than ever of being a LIBERAL. Whst's next from the Sandintern, show trials where we tearfully confess our progressive shortcomings and promise to be better Sandersnistas or whatever that gobbledygook is? There are plenty of things I agree with in Bernie Sanders but his supporters are generally not one of them.
6
The economic liberalism of the New Deal began to come to an end in 1936, and move toward the civil rights liberalism that dominated post WWII. It just took the press 80 years to notice.
4
We're "Progressive" some of Obama's directions have been that.
Opposite is "Regressive" almost all of Trump, McConnell, Ryan's directions are "Regressive", exactly backwards.
Voters are upset because they make less than their parents did. In 1950's profits were shared with the workers that produced the profits from goods and services.
Now, profits are kept and hoarded by the already rich. Revolution, anyone?
Opposite is "Regressive" almost all of Trump, McConnell, Ryan's directions are "Regressive", exactly backwards.
Voters are upset because they make less than their parents did. In 1950's profits were shared with the workers that produced the profits from goods and services.
Now, profits are kept and hoarded by the already rich. Revolution, anyone?
6
Far too much is being made of last year's election. Trump didn't win as much as Democrats lost. But even in that loss the issue wasn't strategy. It was tactics. Sure, the fissure between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters is real, but healing that wound will be meaningless without tending to tactical problems. The notion that Bernie would have won had he been the nominee is a case of people simply not understanding why Hillary lost.
So, forget all this talk about who Democrats are; we need to move on figuring out how we sell against lying, thieving Republicans. Such lies helped a Republican win a special election in GA last month - especially the lie about Democrats being angry and dangerous. The Susan Sarandon's of the world better wake-up, and quick. Guess what, they'll lie Bernie into the ground, too.
Democrats of all varieties need to rally right now and start fighting the Republican lie machine. And we do that with truth. We start running ads now - not next year during the election season - educating voters in mid-sized cities we lost about Republican lies. We go on the attack and brainwash voters with the truth. Just like Republican brainwash with lies. Maybe we even sue the super-pac that ran that atrocious ad in GA last month calling us dangerous. Trump will stumble soon and we need to be ready. We need a few billion dollars. Stop whining and get moving. The problem is tactics, NOT strategy.
So, forget all this talk about who Democrats are; we need to move on figuring out how we sell against lying, thieving Republicans. Such lies helped a Republican win a special election in GA last month - especially the lie about Democrats being angry and dangerous. The Susan Sarandon's of the world better wake-up, and quick. Guess what, they'll lie Bernie into the ground, too.
Democrats of all varieties need to rally right now and start fighting the Republican lie machine. And we do that with truth. We start running ads now - not next year during the election season - educating voters in mid-sized cities we lost about Republican lies. We go on the attack and brainwash voters with the truth. Just like Republican brainwash with lies. Maybe we even sue the super-pac that ran that atrocious ad in GA last month calling us dangerous. Trump will stumble soon and we need to be ready. We need a few billion dollars. Stop whining and get moving. The problem is tactics, NOT strategy.
6
How about being idea based with best in class solutions? It doesn't matter what the label is if the ideas and solutions rock the house.
2
A liberal is the person conservatives call out for when they are in trouble. Rush Limbaugh begs for help with his deafness ( treated with technology surely developed in part by the NIH) and asks us to ignore his history of drug abuse and hate speech. Sean Hanity uses the public air spaces developed and protected by the FCC developed by the Roosevelt administration. To quote the vernerable philosopher, Popeye, " I yam what I am." I strive to be a decent, kind, thoughtful, intelligent, open person working to make a good world for everyone.
Our next door neighbors are Republicans and I'm pretty sure they live by the same ideals. Our accross the street neighbor is a Trump supporter and if he is a fellow traveler with Rush, Sean and Bannon, well, they think they have the vision of a perfect world. But I will never be a part of that, unless that is, unless they are in trouble.
Our next door neighbors are Republicans and I'm pretty sure they live by the same ideals. Our accross the street neighbor is a Trump supporter and if he is a fellow traveler with Rush, Sean and Bannon, well, they think they have the vision of a perfect world. But I will never be a part of that, unless that is, unless they are in trouble.
4
I've been thhinking the last few days about the "broken windows" theory of crime and have decided that it now best applies to the society we live in. currently we have 300 million broken windows, and there is nobody to fix them so that our society will once again be more or less whole and we are on a new path being constructive.
Everyone labels someone something nor other, no two definitions describe the same thing, we have a congress that can't stand the idea of government, we have people who happily take away help from their fellow Americans, we are still racist, escapist, overdosist,sexist and a whole host of non-functioning things. There is no fix, no magic wand that is going to put America-dumpty together again. We can no longer think as one, we don't want to be one, individuality has taken over and we will be gone in the next hundred years or less. Every species has its lifetime, and we are nearing our end. It is GOOD to be old having lived in the better world than the one coming. Set all of your tv dishes to the south so you can hear the next trump inane tweet.
Everyone labels someone something nor other, no two definitions describe the same thing, we have a congress that can't stand the idea of government, we have people who happily take away help from their fellow Americans, we are still racist, escapist, overdosist,sexist and a whole host of non-functioning things. There is no fix, no magic wand that is going to put America-dumpty together again. We can no longer think as one, we don't want to be one, individuality has taken over and we will be gone in the next hundred years or less. Every species has its lifetime, and we are nearing our end. It is GOOD to be old having lived in the better world than the one coming. Set all of your tv dishes to the south so you can hear the next trump inane tweet.
1
I know what liberal means and it has nothing to do with how Limbaugh calls them. They hijacked the words but not it's meaning. Liberals now prefer calling themselves progressives. I really do t care what others mean. I think of myself as liberal in the original meaning of the word in America.
4
Me. Absolutely and forever.
And many others as well.
Try writing something that might help people rather than receive internet hits.
And many others as well.
Try writing something that might help people rather than receive internet hits.
4
Conservatives began intoning the word as if there was something wrong with it. This has gone on for decades to the point where the 'idea' that there's something wrong with being liberal or being a liberal has taken hold, and unthinking people are shying away from it. Ridiculous. Name-calling when there's nothing wrong with the name. But, when it's said with a smear by a bully all the pusillanimous bystanders go "Oh, not me." Progressive, my...foot.
5
Blinkers... and blinders. I am beginning to realize we've become the isolated No-so-united States of America. Amazing how mobility and technology have allowed us to gerrymander our cultural kingdoms. How many papers has "Gerry" sold today? How much air time? How many politicians have been bought and sold according to label? How many judges?
Everyone I know, where I happen to live, is just fine with saying they are a Liberal. They are a progressive. They are a humanist. In my college classroom it is the quiet conservative and moderate who I tend to target to facilitate into our discussions. How do I know your world is different? Because I read it online? Why is your experience true and mine false?
My point is always the same--shed the lick-it-and-stick-it labels and the scratch-n-sniff terminology. State the objective and make the argument how your solution for what you think is wrong with the world is going to get ALL of us to your objective.
The Public Relation campaigns aren't the call to man-up or woman-up... they are the call to circle wagons and sell papers. The media is so very important as our 4th party to maintaining balance. Please stop writing in terms of the lick-it-and-stick-it labels. Stop buying the paid-writings of the PR shills. Then maybe we can get down to the job of reconstruction... because this war, well, it has been positively identified as the war of Orwell.
Everyone I know, where I happen to live, is just fine with saying they are a Liberal. They are a progressive. They are a humanist. In my college classroom it is the quiet conservative and moderate who I tend to target to facilitate into our discussions. How do I know your world is different? Because I read it online? Why is your experience true and mine false?
My point is always the same--shed the lick-it-and-stick-it labels and the scratch-n-sniff terminology. State the objective and make the argument how your solution for what you think is wrong with the world is going to get ALL of us to your objective.
The Public Relation campaigns aren't the call to man-up or woman-up... they are the call to circle wagons and sell papers. The media is so very important as our 4th party to maintaining balance. Please stop writing in terms of the lick-it-and-stick-it labels. Stop buying the paid-writings of the PR shills. Then maybe we can get down to the job of reconstruction... because this war, well, it has been positively identified as the war of Orwell.
2
What "liberals" have done is waived the white flag of surrender to the binary vocabulary used by "conservatives." Everything now is "liberal" OR "conservative," and "liberals" have given in, agreeing to that label. There is no nuance, no subtlety, no philosophical debate allowed. Mario Cuomo, to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones, railed against this surrender to conservative binary vocabulary to his last breath. in every speech he gave. To Governor Cuomo, government, politics and life comported with the complexity of Teilhard de Chardin, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill -- all themselves at the same time liberal AND conservative. We need to return to a political language subtlety and complexity, one that comports with our actual lives, and those of our fellow citizens. One can only hope.
Nikil Saval captures the transition of the New Deal Keynesian operation of government as regulator of business practice in the area of monopoly and high seller concentration and the counter balance to the business cycle by deficit spending to the post-Clinton retreat to Free Trade and Free Market development and indifference to personal suffering viewed now as individual failing rather than society’s shortcoming. Starting with the Third Way in the 1990s, the left began to shed its old clothing. Voters ceased on any real scale to participate in the political process: instead they became consumers.
Liberalism from the Magna Carta on was about dispersing power from the top down in the best case to an enlighten electorate. It faded away for cause with the rise of the ‘Powell Doctrine’ pushed by the Chamber of Commerce set and hired Think Tanks and within the universities as well with Milton Friedman’s monetary policy making the Bankers kings again.
Saval could have use Neo-Liberalism as a catch-all for that transition but that term creates confusion for those who see it as a version of Liberalism; it is not. The American Mind has been altered and Austerity Policy in the EU shows it is not our unique problem.
Power has gone back to the top.
Liberalism from the Magna Carta on was about dispersing power from the top down in the best case to an enlighten electorate. It faded away for cause with the rise of the ‘Powell Doctrine’ pushed by the Chamber of Commerce set and hired Think Tanks and within the universities as well with Milton Friedman’s monetary policy making the Bankers kings again.
Saval could have use Neo-Liberalism as a catch-all for that transition but that term creates confusion for those who see it as a version of Liberalism; it is not. The American Mind has been altered and Austerity Policy in the EU shows it is not our unique problem.
Power has gone back to the top.
This article is misguided on several levels. The genuine definition of a liberal is an individual who embraces and advocates liberty, freedom, inclusion, healthy debate and social progress. To be sure, there are phony, hypocritical people who profess to be liberal despite the fact that their own attitudes and behavior are the antithesis to the values of what liberalism espouses. The cold, hard truth is that liberalism is a positive thing.
The fact is that many of the criticisms that are directed towards liberals in this article could be levied at conservatives.
The fact is that many of the criticisms that are directed towards liberals in this article could be levied at conservatives.
6
Nikil Saval captures the transition of the New Deal Keynesian operation of government as regulator of business practice in the area of monopoly and high seller concentration and the counter balance to the business cycle by deficit spending to the post-Clinton retreat to Free Trade and Free Market development and indifference to personal suffering viewed now as individual failing rather than society’s.
Liberalism from the Magna Carta on was about dispersing power from the top down in the best case to an enlighten electorate. It faded away for cause with the rise of the ‘Powell Doctrine’ pushed by the Chamber of Commerce set and hired Think Tanks and within the universities as well with Milton Friedman’s monetary policy making the Bankers kings again.
Saval could have use Neo-Liberalism as a catch-all but that term creates confusion for those who see it as a version of Liberalism; it is not. The American Mind has been altered and Austerity Policy in the EU shows it is not our unique problem. Power has gone back to the top.
Liberalism from the Magna Carta on was about dispersing power from the top down in the best case to an enlighten electorate. It faded away for cause with the rise of the ‘Powell Doctrine’ pushed by the Chamber of Commerce set and hired Think Tanks and within the universities as well with Milton Friedman’s monetary policy making the Bankers kings again.
Saval could have use Neo-Liberalism as a catch-all but that term creates confusion for those who see it as a version of Liberalism; it is not. The American Mind has been altered and Austerity Policy in the EU shows it is not our unique problem. Power has gone back to the top.
No doubt about it, every time I drink an elaborate coffee I feel a surge of liberalism. I'm a liberal. I care about people. And despise republicans. It all makes perfect sense to me.
3
Well, I don't know what I am. Liberal or Leftist.... whatever. All I know is that I stand for the same things I stood for in 1988 when I first started voting. Jesus, all this "analysis" is tiring.
To me, government should play a much larger role than providing for a strong military. I have stronger feelings about that than I did in 1988, mainly because the top one percent of wage earners - back then - didn't own our political system like they do now. So, go for it, Nikil. Call me what you will. But DO NOT EVER call me a Republican or conservative. Because, if anyone has changed since 1988, it is them.
It's ironic that you have a picture of America's second greatest POTUS after Lincoln. (Yes, Lincoln was a Republican, but that was back when Republicans were noble beasts.) Roosevelt, an oligarch, realized that the country was born on the backs of folks NOT like him. Today, I wish America's oligarchs only were as prescient as he was. Trump is a manifestation of today's American oligarch. Unprincipled; corrupt; hollow shells of humanity.
To me, government should play a much larger role than providing for a strong military. I have stronger feelings about that than I did in 1988, mainly because the top one percent of wage earners - back then - didn't own our political system like they do now. So, go for it, Nikil. Call me what you will. But DO NOT EVER call me a Republican or conservative. Because, if anyone has changed since 1988, it is them.
It's ironic that you have a picture of America's second greatest POTUS after Lincoln. (Yes, Lincoln was a Republican, but that was back when Republicans were noble beasts.) Roosevelt, an oligarch, realized that the country was born on the backs of folks NOT like him. Today, I wish America's oligarchs only were as prescient as he was. Trump is a manifestation of today's American oligarch. Unprincipled; corrupt; hollow shells of humanity.
7
To paraphrase Churchill, liberalism is the worst of ideologies--except for all the others.
Canadian Liberals actually come fairly close to the classic definition, although the party is mainly about gaining power, sometimes defined as "running from the left and governing from the right." Not unlike Obama and Bill Clinton in many respects.
Personally, I like the slightly less ambiguous "progressive" label. "Liberal" is like one of those labels that has been through the washer so many times that its only utility is helping you tell the back of the shirt from the front. That's behind you, and no one knows where the future has in store. But at least we can hope for progress.
Canadian Liberals actually come fairly close to the classic definition, although the party is mainly about gaining power, sometimes defined as "running from the left and governing from the right." Not unlike Obama and Bill Clinton in many respects.
Personally, I like the slightly less ambiguous "progressive" label. "Liberal" is like one of those labels that has been through the washer so many times that its only utility is helping you tell the back of the shirt from the front. That's behind you, and no one knows where the future has in store. But at least we can hope for progress.
4
I am careful to define myself as a FDR liberal, someone who supports social justice, higher taxes on the rich, Medicare for All, free education at state colleges. Please do not tell me we cannot afford it. We can.
4
The critiques of Liberalism have been refined well in the last few years starting with Chris Hedges’ Death of the Liberal Class published in 2010. “The tragedy of the liberal class and the institutions it controls is that it succumbed to opportunism and finally to fear. It abrogated its moral role. It did not defy corporate abuse when it had the chance. It exiled those within its ranks who did. And the defanging of the liberal class not only removed all barriers to neofeudalism and corporate abuse but also ensured that the liberal class will, in its turn, be swept aside.”
The short hand of that thought is Liberalism transformed into Neo-Liberalism and Edward Luce’s just published “The Retreat of Western Liberalisms” makes the argument that what were the virtues of Liberalism including democracy are disappearing to a rising oligarchy that cares only for itself. His point Corporatism and Democracy are incompatible. This is not a light topic of tone but of essence that The Times could pursue, if it wished.
Needed in the age of Trump for sure.
The short hand of that thought is Liberalism transformed into Neo-Liberalism and Edward Luce’s just published “The Retreat of Western Liberalisms” makes the argument that what were the virtues of Liberalism including democracy are disappearing to a rising oligarchy that cares only for itself. His point Corporatism and Democracy are incompatible. This is not a light topic of tone but of essence that The Times could pursue, if it wished.
Needed in the age of Trump for sure.
I, for one, am proud to be a liberal. Which I define as a left of center Democrat.
4
It wasn't Mike Dukakis who solidified "liberal" as a negative, it's the left-wing who decided to call themselves the cringe-inducing "progressives" instead.
The definition of American liberalism, as being someone solidly for civil rights and liberties for all, and for government intervention when necessary -- and only when necessary -- is one the Democratic Party should embrace. It's the way to get support from the center for officials who will support things that matter: things like minority voting protections, gay marriage and women's rights.
The "liberals" FDR, Truman, JFK LBJ Carter, Clinton, Obama all won presidential elections. The "progressives" who have won? A null set.
I'm proud to be a liberal -- FDR fed my parents' families and defeated fascism. Add civil rights to that and it's the America I want to live in.
The definition of American liberalism, as being someone solidly for civil rights and liberties for all, and for government intervention when necessary -- and only when necessary -- is one the Democratic Party should embrace. It's the way to get support from the center for officials who will support things that matter: things like minority voting protections, gay marriage and women's rights.
The "liberals" FDR, Truman, JFK LBJ Carter, Clinton, Obama all won presidential elections. The "progressives" who have won? A null set.
I'm proud to be a liberal -- FDR fed my parents' families and defeated fascism. Add civil rights to that and it's the America I want to live in.
3
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'" -- Alice in Wonderland
Wouldn't Lewis Carroll have loved the malleability of language in contemporary American politics?
Wouldn't Lewis Carroll have loved the malleability of language in contemporary American politics?
3
I was just reading along, going hmmm - until the remark about "Hamilton." I had no idea it's a show just for liberals. I don't think I'll tell my Republican friends who also love the show. Surely, conservatives shouldn't be enjoying such nonsense! Kinda like this article, eh?
2
The GOP has been out-labeling the Dems for decades, at least as far back as the Nixon era. Darn that William Safire. The Dems really fell into it when they also started calling the ACA ObamaCare.
This is tired and childish. This is the definition of a strawman argument. Define Liberal how you want so you can knock it down. Pointless, predictable and apparently done for no other purpose but to foment a meaningless semantic debate about what liberal "truly" means. Purity tests are pointless. They serve no point but to be divisive. If a Republican calls me a "lousy liberal" I don't care. If he calls me a "lousy pumpkin" I don't care either. Name calling is useless and serves no purpose. Could we please move on to more substantive issues like how to actually improve healthcare.
5
This confusing op-ed is on the one hand about how no one wants to be identified as a liberal and then goes on to admit that the meaning of liberalism in the US has been turned inside out and blended with bits of unrelated 'ism's. American liberalism is an abomination of the journalistic putrefaction of language. It is as much a scam as it so ill defined. As the process of linguistic destruction has accelerated, news has become indistinguishable from polished click-bait. This confusion has contributed to the lack of direction in the Democratic Party. Soon the party will shrivel until it has no guiding principals, becoming the Not Trump Party.
1
Jim Jones and the People Temple Christian Church.
The False Religion of American Political Conservatism.
The Myth of the moral superiority of American Political Conservatism.
American Political conservatism success best with those who do not like to be informed., and those who do not like to think too much. Caveat Emptor, Let the buyer beware.
Follow the church and it false prophets, or is it profits too closely and you find yourself marching into Poland and you do not even know why.
What is liberalism when abused? Conservatism.
All of the power of America - the innovation, the culture as an export, the good side of America - it is all liberal.
Conservatism, gets ahead in America, not on the merits, on the cheat. Like The extreme conservative gerrymander. It is a cheat. They do it and if they get away with it, Great. It is their quest to promote it Not to stop it. Stopping extreme gerrymander is the job of the liberals. Or Like ALEC laws written in the back alley, submitted by a willing stooge. Or like NRA initiatives done the back room. Never in the light of day. The NRA legislative is expert subterfuge.
Liberals are the optimist heart and soul of America.
The glow of the victory of WWII wore off, killed on 911 when the myth of American invincibility was shattered and the conservative psyche scared. And we pay for it.
Who holds the promise of a enlightened prosperous dynamic and vibrant America in their hand? Cons? Libs? The future of America is Liberal
The False Religion of American Political Conservatism.
The Myth of the moral superiority of American Political Conservatism.
American Political conservatism success best with those who do not like to be informed., and those who do not like to think too much. Caveat Emptor, Let the buyer beware.
Follow the church and it false prophets, or is it profits too closely and you find yourself marching into Poland and you do not even know why.
What is liberalism when abused? Conservatism.
All of the power of America - the innovation, the culture as an export, the good side of America - it is all liberal.
Conservatism, gets ahead in America, not on the merits, on the cheat. Like The extreme conservative gerrymander. It is a cheat. They do it and if they get away with it, Great. It is their quest to promote it Not to stop it. Stopping extreme gerrymander is the job of the liberals. Or Like ALEC laws written in the back alley, submitted by a willing stooge. Or like NRA initiatives done the back room. Never in the light of day. The NRA legislative is expert subterfuge.
Liberals are the optimist heart and soul of America.
The glow of the victory of WWII wore off, killed on 911 when the myth of American invincibility was shattered and the conservative psyche scared. And we pay for it.
Who holds the promise of a enlightened prosperous dynamic and vibrant America in their hand? Cons? Libs? The future of America is Liberal
1
"...the space occupied by liberalism itself has shrunk to the point where it’s difficult to locate. Different strands of it now live on under different names."
To: All those non-liberals within the "different strands" who "now live under different names"
You are welcome! Good luck with your courageously radical political nihilism as you struggle for power against "conservatives" and each other.
We still love you, a Liberal.
To: All those non-liberals within the "different strands" who "now live under different names"
You are welcome! Good luck with your courageously radical political nihilism as you struggle for power against "conservatives" and each other.
We still love you, a Liberal.
1
Well, whatever, but Liberal cities, metros and regions pull the US economy. The non-Liberal hinterlands carp, whine and vandalize the liberal mixed economy for a variety of spite, envy, ignorance and naked greed. All of this is on naked display at the utter failure of the Mitch McConnell to "repeal the ACA and do something better". More coherent policy and ideas are found in fields near the rear ends of cattle.
Liberalism has always and still underpins modern political stability and prosperity. Ask Warren Buffett who routinely says, "The US works...I'm optimistic" (I paraphrase).
You can call me liberal, it's fine with me.
Liberalism has always and still underpins modern political stability and prosperity. Ask Warren Buffett who routinely says, "The US works...I'm optimistic" (I paraphrase).
You can call me liberal, it's fine with me.
7
Roosevelt and Wagner liberals of days gone by would be vilified by today's "Progressives" for being too conservative. Even back in the day, when Stalin allied with Hitler to carve up Poland, Roosevelt was vilified by the Pete Seeger Left for supplying war aid to Great Britain, which stood alone against Hitler without a friend in the world besides Roosevelt.
1
@Jm
The issue of War was pre-WWII still then a matter of choice, the concept of Pax Americana had not been established. That was to flow out of the anti-Communist period post-war. Pete Seeger was a pacifist as were many in America and the classification does not fit right-left well.
The issue of War was pre-WWII still then a matter of choice, the concept of Pax Americana had not been established. That was to flow out of the anti-Communist period post-war. Pete Seeger was a pacifist as were many in America and the classification does not fit right-left well.
1
As a Canadian socialist who has lived extensively in the USA I would give this op-ed a D. One of the father's of modern liberalism is the liberal 18th century Irish philosopher and supporter of the American revolution Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke except for his opposition to the French Revolution is the classic liberal. Burke believed in Indian self government, equal rights for women, universal suffrage and virtually every aspect of what we call liberalism.
Turning Burke into a conservative icon proves the brilliance of the right wing propaganda.
Secondly the American revolution was a liberal revolution with ten of thousands of conservatives fleeing the liberal experiment of America for the security of the Empire.
Thirdly neoliberalism has nothing whatsover to do with liberalism. Neoliberalism is simply the belief in the Laissez Faire economics of the 18th and 19th century whose greatest accomplishment was the removal of 20% of the Irish population by death from starvation or forced deportation. Keep in mind their was no famine in Ireland where 1845-1852 were boom years for Ireland's food export economy.
Indeed it is Paul Ryan who is the most successful advocate of fundamentalist neoliberalism. It was the great Ireland born English satirist Jonathan Swift who laid bare the shortcomings of neoliberalism in Gulliver's Travels and a Modest Proposal.
Indeed it is the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that are the very definition of Liberalism.
Edmund Burke except for his opposition to the French Revolution is the classic liberal. Burke believed in Indian self government, equal rights for women, universal suffrage and virtually every aspect of what we call liberalism.
Turning Burke into a conservative icon proves the brilliance of the right wing propaganda.
Secondly the American revolution was a liberal revolution with ten of thousands of conservatives fleeing the liberal experiment of America for the security of the Empire.
Thirdly neoliberalism has nothing whatsover to do with liberalism. Neoliberalism is simply the belief in the Laissez Faire economics of the 18th and 19th century whose greatest accomplishment was the removal of 20% of the Irish population by death from starvation or forced deportation. Keep in mind their was no famine in Ireland where 1845-1852 were boom years for Ireland's food export economy.
Indeed it is Paul Ryan who is the most successful advocate of fundamentalist neoliberalism. It was the great Ireland born English satirist Jonathan Swift who laid bare the shortcomings of neoliberalism in Gulliver's Travels and a Modest Proposal.
Indeed it is the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that are the very definition of Liberalism.
32
This is a pretty under-informed summary of Edmund Burke's political paradigm. Burke believed that the default stance toward any change should be "no" until it's proven that the change would be broadly beneficial. This attitude extended to his statements about the issues you mention. Burke's main point regarding the American Revolution was that revolution - a great change - could be averted if the king would just stop taxing the colonists. He asserted the right of the Crown and of Britain to have unequal relations with its colonies. Against Thomas Paine, he rejected the notion that government could be a central engine of a people's greatness. That engine was to be ethnic **tradition.** So his entire outlook rules out multiculturalism.
You say that "Turning Burke into a conservative icon proves the brilliance of the right wing propaganda." I'm not really a fan of Burke, but I disagree with you here. No one who claims that Burke was an ideological forefather of modern conservatism is lying to you.
You say that "Turning Burke into a conservative icon proves the brilliance of the right wing propaganda." I'm not really a fan of Burke, but I disagree with you here. No one who claims that Burke was an ideological forefather of modern conservatism is lying to you.
1
The United States is the only country that uses the term "liberal" to designate the left-wing.
Liberal comes from liberalism, the philosophical school that was dominant before the birth of socialism and the WWI.
In any other country, liberal is the hard-right, just like a socialist is the hard-left. Then you have the neonazis/fascists, then the libertarians (the adepts of the Austrian School, in the economics and Ayn Rand in philosophy), the liberals -- whithin the liberals, you have the neoliberals (conservatives) more to the right and the keynesians (what you call liberals nowadays) more to the left.
The anarchists are in the far-left. Among the socialists, there are many currents, the Trotskist being the leftmost, then the Stalinists and, most near the right-wing, the social-democrats/Eurocommunists (some of which may be even keynesian themselves). Of course, there are many more, those are just the main ones.
On the tenuous absolute center (for now) there is the pragmatists, a.k.a. the neoliberal-lite, the "third way". They were also known in the USA as the "Southern Democrats" because of the ascension of Bill Clinton. Philosophically, the are best represented by the UK's New Labour, from which the term "third way" came from. In practice, they were neoliberals with a cute face -- that's why the center quickly shifted to the right after the crisis of 2008.
Liberal comes from liberalism, the philosophical school that was dominant before the birth of socialism and the WWI.
In any other country, liberal is the hard-right, just like a socialist is the hard-left. Then you have the neonazis/fascists, then the libertarians (the adepts of the Austrian School, in the economics and Ayn Rand in philosophy), the liberals -- whithin the liberals, you have the neoliberals (conservatives) more to the right and the keynesians (what you call liberals nowadays) more to the left.
The anarchists are in the far-left. Among the socialists, there are many currents, the Trotskist being the leftmost, then the Stalinists and, most near the right-wing, the social-democrats/Eurocommunists (some of which may be even keynesian themselves). Of course, there are many more, those are just the main ones.
On the tenuous absolute center (for now) there is the pragmatists, a.k.a. the neoliberal-lite, the "third way". They were also known in the USA as the "Southern Democrats" because of the ascension of Bill Clinton. Philosophically, the are best represented by the UK's New Labour, from which the term "third way" came from. In practice, they were neoliberals with a cute face -- that's why the center quickly shifted to the right after the crisis of 2008.
12
The liberal, or middle ground will always be ( and always was) the poaching ground for left and right. The media on the right will always see the middle as left, the left media will always see it as the right. It all appears rather self destructive when an hourly worker claims the right as representing their values and best interests ( as if they perceive Trump reflecting their Christian values and really improving their prospects and the left is less Christian and incapable or unwilling to improve their lot), or when the 1% claim the left most represents their values and interests ( as if they are truly willing to pay lots more in taxes (50% and higher in the 60's) or that their boards of directors and neighbors are regular folks, mixed race and wide variety of religious faiths).
When I recall the lyrics of the song ' love me, love me, love me I'm a liberal' , I must laugh at my self because I really did feel that way ( only in the 60's .. really trust me).
We are irrational humans. If you don't agree you haven't kept up on your reading. 'Thinking Fast and thinking slow' will bring you up to speed. We all hold contradictory ideas close to our hearts. I know I do, God must not be finished with me yet.
When I recall the lyrics of the song ' love me, love me, love me I'm a liberal' , I must laugh at my self because I really did feel that way ( only in the 60's .. really trust me).
We are irrational humans. If you don't agree you haven't kept up on your reading. 'Thinking Fast and thinking slow' will bring you up to speed. We all hold contradictory ideas close to our hearts. I know I do, God must not be finished with me yet.
2
"Liberal" wasn't always a bad word. Here is Lincoln's Republican Party, in the platform of 1864: "Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy."
4
America was founded during liberalism's formative period: the Enlightenment. Thus liberal ideas that government power is derived from the "consent of the governed" and should protect "natural rights" have been embedded in the DNA of the US. "Classical liberalism" is the offspring of the Enlightenment and it includes capitalistic notions of free trade and deregulation of markets. Capitalism is a response to the heavy hand of the mercantilist governments of the 17th Century.
4
Just because liberalism is at the core of the New York Times does not mean it is at the core of our nation, despite what the Times would want you to believe.
4
I have read the Drclaration and constitutions and their histories so I know about the liberal foundations of America.
What fool would base any opinion about America based on the falsely ascribed editorial policy of the Times? None I have ever met.
The reactionaries who hate their countrymen and love fascism sure are committed to a twisted narcissistic relationship with their true loves, their own strawmen projections. They know nothing about their actual countrymen they hate.
What fool would base any opinion about America based on the falsely ascribed editorial policy of the Times? None I have ever met.
The reactionaries who hate their countrymen and love fascism sure are committed to a twisted narcissistic relationship with their true loves, their own strawmen projections. They know nothing about their actual countrymen they hate.
1
A few decades ago the cliché was that a liberal was someone had not been mugged yet.
Some obvious contradictions of liberals are that in spite of what they say many of their cities are some of the most segregated areas in the country, they have supported programs which have reduced the middle and working class in the country and increased inequality to record levels, are strong advocates of gun control in spite of the fact that their urban strongholds typically exhibit some of the lowest levels of firearm ownership while also producing almost 75% of firearm homicides in the country, and in spite of constantly patting themselves on the back for being smarter / better educated have displayed a rather profound level of political incompetence. They are in the worst position in about century.
Many blame gerrymandering which doesn't affect Senate and Presidential elections, or the FBI / Russians in spite of the fact that Michael Moore correctly predicted the outcome of the election; why Trump would win and how, in July of 2016, with no mention of the FBI or Russians. Being smarter should count for something in the political arena, and absence of the ability to remain a viable political party suggests that as with so many other issues intelligence isn't apparently being applied in an intelligent manner.
Some obvious contradictions of liberals are that in spite of what they say many of their cities are some of the most segregated areas in the country, they have supported programs which have reduced the middle and working class in the country and increased inequality to record levels, are strong advocates of gun control in spite of the fact that their urban strongholds typically exhibit some of the lowest levels of firearm ownership while also producing almost 75% of firearm homicides in the country, and in spite of constantly patting themselves on the back for being smarter / better educated have displayed a rather profound level of political incompetence. They are in the worst position in about century.
Many blame gerrymandering which doesn't affect Senate and Presidential elections, or the FBI / Russians in spite of the fact that Michael Moore correctly predicted the outcome of the election; why Trump would win and how, in July of 2016, with no mention of the FBI or Russians. Being smarter should count for something in the political arena, and absence of the ability to remain a viable political party suggests that as with so many other issues intelligence isn't apparently being applied in an intelligent manner.
6
How about we use "a conservative is someone who hasn't needed help yet." The best example? Nancy Reagan realizing money should be spent on alzheimer's research...after her husband got it.
1
I love liberals but hate Democrats.
3
I am a proud Liberal.
But call it by any name you like - a Liberal is a person who believes in inclusivity and a world without borders. The opposite believes in ever smaller borders and tighter and more exclusive definitions for everyone and everything. Liberals are the people of shades of nuance. Its opposite is the world of black and white.
But call it by any name you like - a Liberal is a person who believes in inclusivity and a world without borders. The opposite believes in ever smaller borders and tighter and more exclusive definitions for everyone and everything. Liberals are the people of shades of nuance. Its opposite is the world of black and white.
17
Since you believe in a world without borders, I'll be at your place for dinner tomorrow night. I like my steaks medium well, please.
5
Morgan has it right. That's it.
7
I'll buy your definition of a liberal. But it follows by default then that you don't believe in social safety nets. You can't kumbaya your way out of that reality.
Nobody would want to be a "liberal" as the word is used by conservatives, but the good news is that no one is! The word has become a simple insult used by conservatives for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason. The word has lost all meaning in current political debate.
I would rather get back to using the term "compassionate conservative", which these days pretty much means Democrats.
I would rather get back to using the term "compassionate conservative", which these days pretty much means Democrats.
14
You are so right about how "liberal" (the "L" word) became an easy pot shot for the Trumpies of old and of today. In the mid-90s, when the then Trumpies were aghast about the idea of Bill Clinton being president, and this was way before Monica Lewinsky, my relatives would go on and on about how terrible he was. I knew why, which is that they were even then imbibing a daily overdose of Rush Limbaugh. Anyway, I would finally ask them, why do you hate Bill Clinton so much. They had no real response, but would uniformly declare, "because he's a Liberal." [Thank you George H. W. Bush!] Of course, I would say something like, "but I'm a liberal," and that would completely close off the conversation and we would all agree to go play tennis the next day. [P.S. I always won those tennis games.]
9
America's Founding Fathers were politically "liberal" in a similar sense to political liberals today, meaning "of or befitting a man of free birth" and definition 5 in Merriam-Webster's: "tolerant of varied views." What the right objects to, and what not all liberals believe, is M-W's obsolete definition 3: "obsolete: lacking moral restraint: licentious." The Founding Fathers most definitely believed in liberal political views regarding freedom by birthright and being tolerant of varied views, and I and other liberals/progressives of today believe the same. Liberalism doesn't equate to a belief in libertinism or licentiousness. Used properly, according to the dictionary definition, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the "liberal" label; it's just been hijacked by Republicans to demonize their opposition.
10
As a life long, dedicated Democrat I dislike the pejorative "Liberal" or worse, "Progressive". Both are highly suggestive of elitism of a ruling class that values extreme political, cultural and economic views that deeply conflict with the values and challenges of ordinary American citizens. The term "Liberal" is used by Republican opponents to demean the Democrats and to challenge their legitimacy and authenticity. In short, Liberalism means a party of elitists and intellectualism that destroys individual initiative and self-reliance.
We must also acknowledge that other terms have taken on new meaning that in today's highly charged political atmosphere have contributed to our political and cultural divides that challenge our nation. For instance, not a single word, but a phrase "The sanctity of the vote" asserted by Republican conservatives, when used in the context of explaining the "self-evident truth" in demanding legislation to prevent illegal votes by unregistered voters, then that phrase becomes interpreted as a religious edict challenging opponents to refute "Sanctity" and also, god.
This is not far-fetched. Words matter. In religious teachings we are taught about sanctity in that commandments that come from god are good, truthful and have "sanctity". Applying that word when promoting a political point of view makes it a religious test.
I don't want to be associated with "hegemonic intellectual tradition" and "Liberalism." I am not progressive. I am a Democrat.
We must also acknowledge that other terms have taken on new meaning that in today's highly charged political atmosphere have contributed to our political and cultural divides that challenge our nation. For instance, not a single word, but a phrase "The sanctity of the vote" asserted by Republican conservatives, when used in the context of explaining the "self-evident truth" in demanding legislation to prevent illegal votes by unregistered voters, then that phrase becomes interpreted as a religious edict challenging opponents to refute "Sanctity" and also, god.
This is not far-fetched. Words matter. In religious teachings we are taught about sanctity in that commandments that come from god are good, truthful and have "sanctity". Applying that word when promoting a political point of view makes it a religious test.
I don't want to be associated with "hegemonic intellectual tradition" and "Liberalism." I am not progressive. I am a Democrat.
3
This piece is lame. Attention seeking that thrives on division without any real substance. Please stop trying to compete with Fox News style journalism by appealing to the lowest denominator, division and name calling. This is 5 minutes of my life I can never take back. Ridiculous.
11
I shall always be a Liberal and proud of it.
12
Social media amplifies the voices of political fringe, warping any attempt to statistically analyze the true thinking of the wider public. It acts as a megaphone for the ten percent on either side of the political spectrum who are the most extreme and intractable. Social media gives them all a voice far louder than any they could otherwise obtain through non-violent means. They are also it's most prolific users, by several orders of magnitude. As for liberal and conservative, the modern world is far too complex and diverse for those overly simplistic labels.
6
Yes. Liberals are both disdained by the left and abused by the right. I don't know anyone under the age of 35 that identifies as liberal and for good reason. The popular aspects of American liberalism aren't actually liberal at all. Bernie Sanders was more precise in his language when describing the domestic legacy of F.D.R. and L.B.J as democratic socialism. At least the intent was socialist in nature if not in reality. However, socialism was branded a dirty word by the right as well. We ended up squeezing socialism's square peg into the round hole of liberalism. As noted, "progressive" only confuses matters worse these days.
In any event, the purportedly "liberal" party abandoned even these basic tenets as early as Reagan if not before. Call it what you will but the Clinton agenda is neither liberal, progressive, nor socialist. I'm not sure you could even describe their tenure as a philosophy. "Neoliberal" is the word used to fill the gaping hole in our lexicon where everyone else is still asking what the heck was that? At best, I'd suggest the Clinton's don't offer a philosophy but rather a style and approach to policy management contextualized by globalization and technology. Everything else is patronizing elitism encapsulated in the "limousine liberal" insult.
Conservatives aren't off the hook either though. The devolution of thought since the Reagan victory is staggering. With Obama as a quasi-exception, everyone was too busy getting rich to actually bother governing.
In any event, the purportedly "liberal" party abandoned even these basic tenets as early as Reagan if not before. Call it what you will but the Clinton agenda is neither liberal, progressive, nor socialist. I'm not sure you could even describe their tenure as a philosophy. "Neoliberal" is the word used to fill the gaping hole in our lexicon where everyone else is still asking what the heck was that? At best, I'd suggest the Clinton's don't offer a philosophy but rather a style and approach to policy management contextualized by globalization and technology. Everything else is patronizing elitism encapsulated in the "limousine liberal" insult.
Conservatives aren't off the hook either though. The devolution of thought since the Reagan victory is staggering. With Obama as a quasi-exception, everyone was too busy getting rich to actually bother governing.
3
The problem is most people under 35 have not been politically educated to fully understand the implications of the terms, liberal, neoliberal, progressive, conservative, democrat, republican, etc.
2
I refuse to skulk in the dark recesses of the Democratic Party, ashamed or afraid to admit I am a Bona Fide Bleeding Heart Liberal for fear of retribution by the Conservative Right or by the Pseudo Progressive Left. That would be like pretending I'm not a Feminist so that people aren't afraid of my opinions. Or being embarrassed to say that I've spent my life in the Arts instead of on Wall Street, for fear of being accused of not having as healthy a respect for money as I do for culture. Or not wanting to admit I am a lifelong Yogi, for fear that hardcore football fans will think my life is all crystals and meditation pillows. I am not going to apologize for being a Liberal or for being a Democrat and I've lived a long enough life that I don't have to change the flag I carry just to be hip or au courant, or, worse change what I call myself for variety's sake. I'm a Democrat. I'm a Liberal. I'm a Feminist. I voted for Hillary Clinton and if I had the change I'd do it again tomorrow. And I am proud of all of those things. And while I'm at it, this country hasn't had a Progressive Candidate since Henry Wallace. The reason the Democratic Party is in trouble is because it is apologizes for everything. Enter Donald Trump. And here we all are.
12
Don't be silly. "Liberal democracy" (secular, tolerant, diverse, etc.) is and has been the future path for humanity since the Enlightenment. "Liberals" back this concept across the world. I am a liberal, and very comfortable in identifying myself as such.
22
I vehemently agree and disagree with what I see as two major concepts here.
"Now the political left is expressing its hatred of liberals, too. For the committed leftist, the 'liberal' is a weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class."
That's only if by "committed leftist," you mean "socialist." We liberals ARE the left. A socialist and a liberal are not the same thing. In our country, liberals, moderates and conservatives embrace and work within capitalism. Conservatives want to corrupt it so it rewards those who take advantage of others. Liberals want to reform it so it runs smoothly and rewards opportunity to all (which should be our view beyond economics as well). But socialists don't belong on that spectrum at all. They want to replace capitalism with socialism. So if the "committed leftist" is to be believed, anyone supporting capitalism is a "market-friendly centrist."
This is why American liberalism must be defined, which is what the article kinda says is a problem (it's also poorly defined). The mix-up I describe exists precisely because liberalism has no definition, so it exists shapelessly between moderates and off-spectrum socialists. It cannot be a vague feeling. It must be a clear philosophy and ideology. It must be something those of us on the left (the actual left) define and embrace.
We should be proud to be American liberals, just as soon as we figure out what that is precisely.
"Now the political left is expressing its hatred of liberals, too. For the committed leftist, the 'liberal' is a weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class."
That's only if by "committed leftist," you mean "socialist." We liberals ARE the left. A socialist and a liberal are not the same thing. In our country, liberals, moderates and conservatives embrace and work within capitalism. Conservatives want to corrupt it so it rewards those who take advantage of others. Liberals want to reform it so it runs smoothly and rewards opportunity to all (which should be our view beyond economics as well). But socialists don't belong on that spectrum at all. They want to replace capitalism with socialism. So if the "committed leftist" is to be believed, anyone supporting capitalism is a "market-friendly centrist."
This is why American liberalism must be defined, which is what the article kinda says is a problem (it's also poorly defined). The mix-up I describe exists precisely because liberalism has no definition, so it exists shapelessly between moderates and off-spectrum socialists. It cannot be a vague feeling. It must be a clear philosophy and ideology. It must be something those of us on the left (the actual left) define and embrace.
We should be proud to be American liberals, just as soon as we figure out what that is precisely.
3
Liberals are centrists, have always been centrists. It's the conservatives who have re-defined themselves as being of the far right. There is almost no far-left in the US.
3
I have no idea what this article is even talking about. If anything, this election has made us liberals more determined and focused on the importance of the core values of liberalism.
LIBERAL and proud of it.
LIBERAL and proud of it.
17
A person's ability to advance liberalism extends only as far as his or her ability to convince others voluntarily to part with their own money to help advance that liberal vision. Unfortunately, I won't allow any government I support to spend a nickel to pay for someone's abortion. I won't spend a nickel to allow boys to pee in girls bathrooms. I don't feel abashed saying "we can't afford to pay for that" and I'm not above saying "I don't want that." Liberalism generally consists of talking bad about people like me. I'm cool with that.
1
The enemies of liberalism, the progressive on the left and the conservative on the right might think that liberalism is on its death bed, but they would be gravely mistaken.
As modernism continues to collapse here in the West, a new era of Enlightenment is beginning to emerge with the opening of the postmodern path with the consequences of Brexit all around us now.
It is this postmodern environment which will be found to be toxic for the progressive who today is consumed with pleonexia. Pleonexia is a philosophical term going all the way back to ancient Greece. It means, "the obsession for those things that rightfully belong to others." Even back then, the progressive was known, except they only went by another name. This need to control and centralise is anathema to the power structures that are found within postmodernism.
Postmodernism favors the modern conservative ideology even less. Its rigid framework of tradition, custom and religion will always be under attack or disruption by the individualism that postmodernism creates.
Only the liberal, who ironically came into existence with the first Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries will see a path forward. And that path is really simple.....as long as they stick to it...
A path where Sovereignty comes before Solidarity,
Freedom comes before carbon restrained Liberty,
and,
Democracy comes before Ideology.
As modernism continues to collapse here in the West, a new era of Enlightenment is beginning to emerge with the opening of the postmodern path with the consequences of Brexit all around us now.
It is this postmodern environment which will be found to be toxic for the progressive who today is consumed with pleonexia. Pleonexia is a philosophical term going all the way back to ancient Greece. It means, "the obsession for those things that rightfully belong to others." Even back then, the progressive was known, except they only went by another name. This need to control and centralise is anathema to the power structures that are found within postmodernism.
Postmodernism favors the modern conservative ideology even less. Its rigid framework of tradition, custom and religion will always be under attack or disruption by the individualism that postmodernism creates.
Only the liberal, who ironically came into existence with the first Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries will see a path forward. And that path is really simple.....as long as they stick to it...
A path where Sovereignty comes before Solidarity,
Freedom comes before carbon restrained Liberty,
and,
Democracy comes before Ideology.
1
What on earth is "carbon restrained Liberty"??
3
There was a fascinating time in our history when the Progressives moved our nation out of the staid, laissez-faire attitude of big pro-business types ... and that was under the quixotic leadership of Teddy Roosevelt. TR was in the GOP, but was pro-environment, pro-union (up to a point), and pro-internationalism (albeit with imperialist visions).
For this he earned the scorn of the mainstream GOP and most of the Democrats, but got elected in any case and changed the tenor of politics in his age.
He is now a darling of both the Left and the Right ... but each side fir only part of his policies.
We may need such a man again who can so confuse both sides of the political divide
For this he earned the scorn of the mainstream GOP and most of the Democrats, but got elected in any case and changed the tenor of politics in his age.
He is now a darling of both the Left and the Right ... but each side fir only part of his policies.
We may need such a man again who can so confuse both sides of the political divide
1
Liberalism is a scapegoat for the inherent flaws of this country.
3
Will Rogers circa 1930s: "I'm not a member of any organized party,
I'm a Democrat"
sed -e 's/Democrat/Liberal'
I'm a Democrat"
sed -e 's/Democrat/Liberal'
2
I definitely want to be called a liberal.
FDR and Harry Truman were among the best our country have to offer, and I continue to stand with them.
With respect to "progressive": a progressive is a liberal without the guts to admit it.
FDR and Harry Truman were among the best our country have to offer, and I continue to stand with them.
With respect to "progressive": a progressive is a liberal without the guts to admit it.
16
Oh, yes! See what conservatism has brought us? Hypocritical Bible Thumpers, Confederate Flag-wavers who can't accept that the South lost the Civil War, the Koch Brothers, Science-is-Bunk Flat Earthers, Handmaid Tale "Captains" Laffer Curve Lovers who STILL believe that wealth will inevitably trickle down, assault weapon fetishists and Donald Trump. This is the alternative to liberalism?
28
To be anything but a Liberal ("illiberal") strikes me as dishonest and indecent. I have always been a Liberal. The only deviation from that came when I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hubert Humphrey for president in 1968 because of his indefensible support for the Vietnam War. And so we got Nixon! Without Liberalism we would not have FDR and the New Deal. What have we gotten with the "iliberals" (i.e. Republicans) except tax cuts for the rich?!
18
Hope all you liberal haters turn down your Social Security benefits and Medicaid if you are eligible.
22
I bet some would if you'd return the money taken from them, to support those programs.
Give me liberalism or give me death!
12
Unabashed Liberal, here.
14
Liberalism is and was hated by both Fascists and Communists. That ought to tell you something.
16
Being liberal in itself is not a bad thing. Being a politically correct socially progressive, extreme tolerance, Caucasian-guilt person is Extremely bad.. So the word 'liberal' must be used as shorthand to describe them
7
Correction. Heart.
1
What world do you live in? This article makes my skin crawl with your puny logic. Dismiss name calling as any kind of intellectual discourse.
And when did politeness become 'politically correct'? Being a considerate human being is a bad thing? I think not.
And when did politeness become 'politically correct'? Being a considerate human being is a bad thing? I think not.
12
Liberal thinking is critical thought. Critical thought tells us there us no daylight between progressive thought and liberal thought. One supports the other. Weaken this union and you make us all vulnerable to the real monsters at the gate; Fascism.
4
It's true. "Liberal" has become synonymous with "establishment Democrats", or "Clinton supporters". "Progressivism" is the mantle taken by Team Bernie. It is the political vernacular adapting to the political reality, which is how the discourse evolves. It's similar to how "conservative", which literally is the ANTONYM of "radical", is now the appropriated moniker of the radical right.
For the first time in, I believe, decades, renowned leftist Noam Chomsky was in the digital NYT (the liberal press!) yesterday. A friend texted me this news ("up is down") and mentioned the top comment as being "lethal". It was, of course, a fervent Democrat condescending to NOAM CHOMSKY(!!!!!), scolding him on "facts" like a child.
After reading both, my response was, "I hate Dems even more than Republicans. Is there any more toxic combo than self-righteousness and smugness?"
Perhaps a less offensive "definition", then, would hearken back to Socrates (via Plato):
"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do."
For the first time in, I believe, decades, renowned leftist Noam Chomsky was in the digital NYT (the liberal press!) yesterday. A friend texted me this news ("up is down") and mentioned the top comment as being "lethal". It was, of course, a fervent Democrat condescending to NOAM CHOMSKY(!!!!!), scolding him on "facts" like a child.
After reading both, my response was, "I hate Dems even more than Republicans. Is there any more toxic combo than self-righteousness and smugness?"
Perhaps a less offensive "definition", then, would hearken back to Socrates (via Plato):
"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do."
3
Abandoning the term liberal is the one of the few areas in which I disagree with Bernie Sanders.
3
Totally silly opinion piece -- I'm a proud Liberal!
14
The last American liberal was Scoop Jackson, and he's been dead so long the Left doesn't even know who he was.
They are not liberals ... they are Leftist.
A liberal believes in the individual ... Leftist believe in the State.
A liberal has a deep respect for free speech ... a Leftist attacks our right of free speech daily.
I could go on and on, but if you don't get it by now ... you never will.
They are not liberals ... they are Leftist.
A liberal believes in the individual ... Leftist believe in the State.
A liberal has a deep respect for free speech ... a Leftist attacks our right of free speech daily.
I could go on and on, but if you don't get it by now ... you never will.
4
Lovely. And hilarious. Looks like someone at the Times has finally figured out why they lost the election. Most people don't want "liberalism" anymore. They want either socialism or hard-right nativist conservatism. Liberalism is bland, boring, and serves the best interests of no one except for a small rich, white elite living in New England and California. Its time has passed. If it ever really had one to begin with.
2
And Chicago. I am a liberal.
4
Liberals, in the present day went too far on many issues. Classic liberals of a by gone day had beliefs and principles they held dear and near with conviction and steadfastness.
And that is where Modern day liberals they lost their base, me included. As a life long liberal, they lost me when they they went all "fluid." So much so 1 1=2, today. But hey you're offended so hey does 1 1=3 make you feel better. Okay, so now the answer is three. Oh, okay you think the answer is now 4. Whoa, Nellie, wait a minute. Truth is absolute, not relative. Keep changing the answer and you have no concrete identity, just fracturing, fracturing the base until you're only left with dust.
And that is where Modern day liberals they lost their base, me included. As a life long liberal, they lost me when they they went all "fluid." So much so 1 1=2, today. But hey you're offended so hey does 1 1=3 make you feel better. Okay, so now the answer is three. Oh, okay you think the answer is now 4. Whoa, Nellie, wait a minute. Truth is absolute, not relative. Keep changing the answer and you have no concrete identity, just fracturing, fracturing the base until you're only left with dust.
2
This is a disingenuous piece-- without ever stating it outright, the tone in which it is written suggests that all these criticisms of liberals are false. There is also the impression given that liberals never lash out at people to their left, which is bviously not true. The New Republic, the NYT, and New York magazine all regularly carry writers who attack people to their left.
There are actual substantive issues at stake in the mutual hostility between centrist liberals and those to their left, but this writer seems more interested in portraying leftist critiques as mean spirited posturing.
There are actual substantive issues at stake in the mutual hostility between centrist liberals and those to their left, but this writer seems more interested in portraying leftist critiques as mean spirited posturing.
Oh, you can try to get around it, but it's the IDEAS of liberalism that are the reason that most liberals get mocked. When their ideas are shot down or proven time and time again to be mostly poison, then they get indignant and act like the petulant children they are. Classical liberalism has NOTHING to do with today's libs. Of course, they are abandoning that label, as it has too many negatives going with it...and are now 'progressives'. Same bad ideas, immature thought processes.....no one thinks the name change mean squat.
This article does not reflect reality - re: simplistic view of wars in Indochina, American liberal's "unique" love of government intervention and should not have been published. We are all dumber for having read it.
3
I'm proud to be a liberal. I know lots of other people who are, too. This column is bogus.
8
I believe it was Galbraith who said that the difference between a Liberal and a Consevative is that Conservatives are bound by a rigid ideology and Liberals will try another way if one way does not work.
I think that the Ultra Liberals who call themselves Progressives now are also bound by a rigid ideology that causes them to be impractical.
These are the bleeding heat Liberals.
Democrats must return to being FDR/JFK kick butt Liberals.
I think that the Ultra Liberals who call themselves Progressives now are also bound by a rigid ideology that causes them to be impractical.
These are the bleeding heat Liberals.
Democrats must return to being FDR/JFK kick butt Liberals.
7
Another over written piece on basically nothing. i am self appointed Liberal/ progressive, leftists or whatever and I do not get anything this writing proclaims or says.
4
Every decent human in 2017 is a liberal.
No exceptions.
The world economy and technology and health are all liberal enterprises. Rights, liberal. Silicon Valley, a liberal invention at every level from the public schools to the financial and legal mechanisms that make venture capitalism possible. Steve Jobs lsd and ashram transformations, liberal gifts.
Cowards cower. Jerks smirk.
No exceptions.
The world economy and technology and health are all liberal enterprises. Rights, liberal. Silicon Valley, a liberal invention at every level from the public schools to the financial and legal mechanisms that make venture capitalism possible. Steve Jobs lsd and ashram transformations, liberal gifts.
Cowards cower. Jerks smirk.
5
A beautiful representation of why liberals should expect to keep losing elections.
1
Carl
You apparently don't know this but there is not a liberal party in the United States of America unlike in many countries. Really.
Therefore, to state what I assumed was obvious but I just learned is not, liberals are not losing elections. That they are is an incoherent assertion. Democrats who are running for office as members of the Democrat Party lost more elections than they won against republicans in the 2016 duopoly. This is probably what you meant to say. Of course this was not the case nationally in 2008, for example, so even the implication democrats are always losing more than they win is untrue.
Even if there were a liberal duopoly party, that party would not encompass the followers of the liberal arts and sciences tradition, liberals. The comments here contain many examples of proud liberals whose beliefs are not the strawmen beliefs others falsely claim they are when lying about their countrymen. Hillary, for example, is not a liberal nor are her supporters who slimed Sanders, an independent socialist I did not support, and while Sanders' tens of millions of supporters did include liberals many were not. Nor is Obama a liberal. And I not a democrat.
See how that works? Nah, not a chance, huh. But never you mind. Judgment day will come bye and bye. Liberals are confident of it.
You apparently don't know this but there is not a liberal party in the United States of America unlike in many countries. Really.
Therefore, to state what I assumed was obvious but I just learned is not, liberals are not losing elections. That they are is an incoherent assertion. Democrats who are running for office as members of the Democrat Party lost more elections than they won against republicans in the 2016 duopoly. This is probably what you meant to say. Of course this was not the case nationally in 2008, for example, so even the implication democrats are always losing more than they win is untrue.
Even if there were a liberal duopoly party, that party would not encompass the followers of the liberal arts and sciences tradition, liberals. The comments here contain many examples of proud liberals whose beliefs are not the strawmen beliefs others falsely claim they are when lying about their countrymen. Hillary, for example, is not a liberal nor are her supporters who slimed Sanders, an independent socialist I did not support, and while Sanders' tens of millions of supporters did include liberals many were not. Nor is Obama a liberal. And I not a democrat.
See how that works? Nah, not a chance, huh. But never you mind. Judgment day will come bye and bye. Liberals are confident of it.
1
Here’s a few ideas, stop shouting from the rooftops that transgenderism is normal and should be celebrated and stop with the sanctuary city for illegal immigrant criminals nonsense. Also, realize that police have a pretty tough job and criminals can be very violent. Only then will liberals and/or “progressives” be accepted back into mainstream culture and might even win a few elections. I used to be pretty liberal but not anymore. One more hint, stop using the word "progressive" if you want to increase your influence. For about half of America It means "nutty" or "naïve"
5
Only the truly weak and spineless.
Liberalism what happened? Going all in on identity politics was a blunder, jettisoning or natural allies the working class was idiotic too. But inviting the far left into the Democratic tent 40 years ago will go down as one of the worst political mistakes of all time. This motley crew of progressives, socialists & academic fascists has nothing in common with the Democratic party. They have consistently muted, scrambled, & altered our message when it serves their interests. As much as conservatives despise libs the far left hates them even more. Their presence is a godsend for Republicans who can deftly attack from the outside while the far left Trojan horse sabotages from the inside, a brilliant strategy. Democratic positions on divisive issues like transgender bathrooms, wedding cake mandates, sanctuary cities, unlimited & unrestricted abortion access,& illegal immigration are not only mismatched with public opinion but with the voters, we are trying to win over. These are in reality far left positions but they are perceived as liberal positions making it impossible for them to run in most areas of the country on a national platform. Today’s Democratic Party is dying. We are hollowing ourself out to progressive ideology & leaving working voters behind.The further left the party moves, the more voters are up for grabs by Republicans. If the party moves far left enough, it might continue to call itself Democratic—but in reality, it will be the Progressive Party of America.
2
I remember something called a "John Anderson Volvo Liberal." White shock of hair, wore a white tie, white belt, and a white pair of shoes.
1
I am now and have always been a liberal since I first read the Bill of Rights in grade social studies class in 1943.
I remained a liberal and was unmoved when liberals joined the shouts of “...liking Ike.” I stayed a liberal while some were supporting Reagan’s “morning in America.” I stayed liberal during Clinton’s “triangulation” and Bush II’s compassionate conservationism and Obama’s desperate plea for “hope.”
My liberalism doesn’t relocate with a shifting “center” or an adherence to the popular reaction to Goldwater’s “extremism,” Nixon’s “southern strategy” or Trump’s silliness. My liberalism is the same as it was during the rise of fascism and with the evolution of Trump; the Bill of Rights isn’t a fad; it’s THE standard and the liberal’s action plan is to accept the present while working to bring politics back to the standard.
I remained a liberal and was unmoved when liberals joined the shouts of “...liking Ike.” I stayed a liberal while some were supporting Reagan’s “morning in America.” I stayed liberal during Clinton’s “triangulation” and Bush II’s compassionate conservationism and Obama’s desperate plea for “hope.”
My liberalism doesn’t relocate with a shifting “center” or an adherence to the popular reaction to Goldwater’s “extremism,” Nixon’s “southern strategy” or Trump’s silliness. My liberalism is the same as it was during the rise of fascism and with the evolution of Trump; the Bill of Rights isn’t a fad; it’s THE standard and the liberal’s action plan is to accept the present while working to bring politics back to the standard.
6
The Democrat party is not your father's Democrat party by a long shot. It is the party of the New Left led by former members of the Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Fidel Castro fan clubs. To these people, it is all about power, and when they are not in power they obstruct and undermine. They are only the opposition, and not the loyal opposition.
Their allies like CNN and the Washington Post in the mainstream media imagine that it they are a chosen elite with a manifest destiny to select who is the President and to decide the entire agenda for the country. As for the will of the people - that is completely irrelevant to these arrogant elitists. Most of the media are not liberals by a traditional definition, but indoctrinates of the New Left now in academia from the 1960's and 70's. Repressive tolerance is their modus operandi where anything and anybody on the left that supports the progressive world view is to be tolerated and anything and anybody that threatens that world view is to discredited, marginalized, ridiculed, and destroyed by any means foul or fair - including using physical violence.
Their allies like CNN and the Washington Post in the mainstream media imagine that it they are a chosen elite with a manifest destiny to select who is the President and to decide the entire agenda for the country. As for the will of the people - that is completely irrelevant to these arrogant elitists. Most of the media are not liberals by a traditional definition, but indoctrinates of the New Left now in academia from the 1960's and 70's. Repressive tolerance is their modus operandi where anything and anybody on the left that supports the progressive world view is to be tolerated and anything and anybody that threatens that world view is to discredited, marginalized, ridiculed, and destroyed by any means foul or fair - including using physical violence.
1
It sure is convenient to write your own history book. Nothing you stated is true.
2
I have called myself a "Very Liberal Democrat," on many occasions in these comment sections & elsewhere. I don't quite like to use "progressive," which's a timid way of saying you're a liberal. See, Bernie Sanders even dared to call himself a "(Democratic) SOCIALIST." That's guts.
I'm & have been about completely incompetent to run for any elected office. I have been a citizen only for about 11 years. And I am 81. If my belief doesn't dissuade me from considering to run for any office, my advanced age must.
I'm & have been about completely incompetent to run for any elected office. I have been a citizen only for about 11 years. And I am 81. If my belief doesn't dissuade me from considering to run for any office, my advanced age must.
3
Liberalism has been defined as the thought of John Stewart Mill, with the addition of aid to the poor enabled by the growth in prosperity in the last 150 years.
Unfortunately, that's not what the term has come to mean. It has been hijacked by racists, rent-seekers and statists.
Unfortunately, that's not what the term has come to mean. It has been hijacked by racists, rent-seekers and statists.
7
The article fails. First there is no such thing as a liberal or a conservative. This was an invention of the racists trying to stop the march of human progress and it has worked rather well for them for 50+ years.
Liberal was always a positive word until it began to be used as an epithet. Kind of a reverse version of black people taking the power out of the N word by using it. The racists began using it as an insult and along with the rest of the propaganda they were pumping out it worked. It means that one is open minded and takes in new information and changes ones conclusions based on the validity of that information. This applied to anyone of any political stripe who had this trait.
"Conservatism" on the other hand has always meant the strict adherence to a chosen ideal as opposed to an ideal arrived at after long rigorous process or testing its parameters, regardless of the facts.
The constant repetition of the false tropes in this article reinforces that false tropes false legitimacy.
Liberal was always a positive word until it began to be used as an epithet. Kind of a reverse version of black people taking the power out of the N word by using it. The racists began using it as an insult and along with the rest of the propaganda they were pumping out it worked. It means that one is open minded and takes in new information and changes ones conclusions based on the validity of that information. This applied to anyone of any political stripe who had this trait.
"Conservatism" on the other hand has always meant the strict adherence to a chosen ideal as opposed to an ideal arrived at after long rigorous process or testing its parameters, regardless of the facts.
The constant repetition of the false tropes in this article reinforces that false tropes false legitimacy.
5
I do.
End of discussion.
Goodbye.
End of discussion.
Goodbye.
3
Agreed.
Thanks.
Thanks.
1
The nugget of truth in the middle of this pathetic little squee of hot air click-bait is "Its legislation legalized unions and, with Social Security, created a pension system; a health plan for older Americans, Medicare..." things all of these complainers would like to keep.
11
A rigorous response may be found on Kindle on "American Liberalism: a Legacy Gone Missing in Action", by Richard F. Kessler. Limousine Liberalism is is a fad, a distraction for a dilettante. It does not represent robust Liberalism as a political philosophy and a genuine force for positive change in America.
2
It is a sad thing that the mainstream media can label different political groups and intentionally cause confusion. The word liberal has too many different meanings to be of much use anymore. Check Wikipedia and you will see what the NYT calls liberal is really neo-liberal. And FDR fits most properly in the progressive camp. Sanders, the most well-known progressive has time and again put forward policies that were championed by FDR.
1
I am a proud Liberal. Let me count the ways:
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
Environmental Protection which cleaned us LA's air as well as the Hudson River, just to mention two successes
Women's Rights and giving women the right to vote
Gay Equal Rights
The right to marry whomever you choose
These are just some of the positive achievements of Liberals/Progressives.
What, pray tell, have Conservatives given to this country?
It is well documented in several studies that Liberals, on average, have IQ's that are ten points higher than Conservatives. Also, there are studies that indicate that the more educated one becomes the more likely one becomes a Liberal. So the real question should be "Who wants to be "Conservative" anymore?
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
The Civil Rights Act
Environmental Protection which cleaned us LA's air as well as the Hudson River, just to mention two successes
Women's Rights and giving women the right to vote
Gay Equal Rights
The right to marry whomever you choose
These are just some of the positive achievements of Liberals/Progressives.
What, pray tell, have Conservatives given to this country?
It is well documented in several studies that Liberals, on average, have IQ's that are ten points higher than Conservatives. Also, there are studies that indicate that the more educated one becomes the more likely one becomes a Liberal. So the real question should be "Who wants to be "Conservative" anymore?
11
The moment of truth came during the 2008 financial crisis when the banks were bailed out while so many lost homes and pensions. That wasn't right and no technocratic response is convincing.
That said, I voted for Obama twice and know how catastrophic the Reagan, GW Bush and Trump presidencies were and are. But with the decision to favor the banks over commoners Democrats surrendered a pillar, a supporting wall of liberalism. The party has been on an electoral decline ever since.
That said, I voted for Obama twice and know how catastrophic the Reagan, GW Bush and Trump presidencies were and are. But with the decision to favor the banks over commoners Democrats surrendered a pillar, a supporting wall of liberalism. The party has been on an electoral decline ever since.
5
Me. I very proudly proclaim my self both liberal, and a 'Liberal'.
4
Next week, have an intelligent conservative like Brooks or Brooks write about the grotesque hijacking of the label "conservative" and it's meaning as misrepresented by the Left.
This column is an apologia written to buoy the faithful. I am more sickened by the way the NYT portrays the conservatives among us.
Trump is neither conservative nor liberal, and it is inconvenient to remind liberals who see themselves on the side of social justice that they left 35% of the nation wide open for a candidate like him.
If this is the modern liberal base, they should be ashamed of themselves.
This column is an apologia written to buoy the faithful. I am more sickened by the way the NYT portrays the conservatives among us.
Trump is neither conservative nor liberal, and it is inconvenient to remind liberals who see themselves on the side of social justice that they left 35% of the nation wide open for a candidate like him.
If this is the modern liberal base, they should be ashamed of themselves.
1
I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed 1960s liberal. Liberalism represents the best of what used to be a democratic America.
9
If being a "liberal" means advocating for health care as a matter of right, decent wages, equal pay, universal suffrage, equal opportunity , equal rights, freedom of speech and freedom from religion, then I will plead guilty and serve my sentence with pride.
12
Nice try Dave. Liberals are all about thought, mostly mindless thought. I can't think offhand of any war not started by liberals. Be it the Revolution, The reign of Terror in France, The Civil war, Spanish American, WWI. and II, Vietnam Small under Kennedy giant under Johnson. Took Nixon to end it. You might say Bush started the Afgan/Iraq war but as he has shown, he is a liberal, as is his entire family. So to me, Liberals mean death, destruction, and spending my money unwisely, They mean controlling thought, acts, and ideology. Don't believe me then try and actually practice your religion and not cater to a gay wedding. Doesn't liberal mean freedom for all? Nope,. Just freedom for those in the group. Conservatives tend to be far more practical and tolerant. They are the real live and let live crowd. They would let the English baby go to the US for treatment and even pay for the trip and treatment rather than kill him because he costs too much. See Liberals treat people worse than dogs. Do as we say, get a treat, don't and you cost too much. You can't use a dictionary definition to co-opt reality, But being a liberal, I expect you wouldn't understand that. We live in the world of operational definitions That is part of our freedom.
1
I recently heard Senator Tom Cotton of TN say the word liberal with an exaggerated sneer. What did he think a liberal was. Since the 60s when I was an undergraduate at The New School I have always identified as liberal which meant that you helped people, that you cared. This is opposed to the conservatives who are anal retentive, since they want to deal in labels.
JD
JD
3
Why is no one willing to discuss the elephant in the room?
I'm not Jewish so I will. Anti-Semitism pure and simple. Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with this article but come on why not be truthful when discussing the reasons why.
I'm not Jewish so I will. Anti-Semitism pure and simple. Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with this article but come on why not be truthful when discussing the reasons why.
4
Progressivism.
Liberalism touched by centralized government is called 'progressivism'.
It is a necessary response to the logistics of scaling government to the responsibilities the electorate puts to it.
Because only a nincompoop can imagine government without responsibilities.
Liberalism touched by centralized government is called 'progressivism'.
It is a necessary response to the logistics of scaling government to the responsibilities the electorate puts to it.
Because only a nincompoop can imagine government without responsibilities.
2
In the American context, a Liberal is a white Stanford Grad making 6 figures lecturing a struggling blue collar middle aged white man about "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege". A Progressive would be a white Stanford grad making 6 figures who would actually like to help the struggling blue collar middle aged white man.
3
I am a liberal on social issues and conservative in fiscal matters. The problem with the liberalism is that it has moved too far left on fiscal policies and become more like socialism. It promotes a welfare state without even considering who is going to pay for it and follows a Robin-hood type approach. Typical example a 3% additional state tax on higher earning people in California.
Further liberalism even has accepted violence to promote its philosophy. Just review the liberal protests in last decades including the recent one against G- 20 meeting in Germany. Liberalism is has also become hypocritical and its icons are supposed to be above law no matter what their offense is.
No wonder the tide has turned against this corrupted liberalism around the World.
Further liberalism even has accepted violence to promote its philosophy. Just review the liberal protests in last decades including the recent one against G- 20 meeting in Germany. Liberalism is has also become hypocritical and its icons are supposed to be above law no matter what their offense is.
No wonder the tide has turned against this corrupted liberalism around the World.
5
I am a liberal on social issues and a moderate on fiscal matters, and I agree that SOME of the left has been moving too far left on fiscal matters (this is the great debate between center-left 'mainstream' democrats and the farther-left Bernie bros). However, a 3% additional income tax in California seems like an absurd example. State taxes, overall, even in California, aren't very progressive the way they are and California is one of the few states that actively tries to even out out the regressive sales/property taxes with an actual progressive income tax. Where the more progressive left leaves me behind is when they talk about free college tuition, trade barriers/taxes, and a more expansive social security system -- a lot of this spending they are vague on how it is paid for, but when the fine print does come out, they often propose raising taxes on the upper-middle working class (people who make 100K+) who are already paying 30+% total state/federal/payroll tax rates with marginal rates at 50% or more. Raise taxes on the truly wealthy (who pay 10-20% total tax rates on millions of income) to help support education, health, etc - YES! But there is a limit to what can really be raised and what can really be spent before you start sticking a fork in the eye of people who really are working hard and paying a lot of taxes.
1
@s Krishna
If you're watering your lawn and I get behind you and squeeze the hose, are you going to look at the resulting trickle of water and claim that "people need to be responsible about their water usage...because I'm just seeing a trickle of what I thought I should be getting out of this hose"?
That's essentially your argument with the so-called Left (where are they? I don't see any in government) being 'too far' left on fiscal policies. We have plenty of money. We're just deciding to make choices using different priorities on taxes and spending. Don't forget, we're still operating under the 2011 'austerity agreement' signed between Obama and the congressional GOP that freezes the budget on everything but defense expenditures. And nowhere is it written in stone that our tax system should be riddled with loopholes bought by lobbying by the wealthy.
The money is there for most everything most reasonable Americans think government should be involved with, from infrastructure spending to fully-funded healthcare system (whichever flavor you like). We're just deciding not to 'go where the money is'.
If you're watering your lawn and I get behind you and squeeze the hose, are you going to look at the resulting trickle of water and claim that "people need to be responsible about their water usage...because I'm just seeing a trickle of what I thought I should be getting out of this hose"?
That's essentially your argument with the so-called Left (where are they? I don't see any in government) being 'too far' left on fiscal policies. We have plenty of money. We're just deciding to make choices using different priorities on taxes and spending. Don't forget, we're still operating under the 2011 'austerity agreement' signed between Obama and the congressional GOP that freezes the budget on everything but defense expenditures. And nowhere is it written in stone that our tax system should be riddled with loopholes bought by lobbying by the wealthy.
The money is there for most everything most reasonable Americans think government should be involved with, from infrastructure spending to fully-funded healthcare system (whichever flavor you like). We're just deciding not to 'go where the money is'.
3
"I am a liberal on social issues and conservative in fiscal matters. "
That means you are a liberal in the sense of the word it is understood everywhere in the world, except in the US.
That means you are a liberal in the sense of the word it is understood everywhere in the world, except in the US.
1
No "actual liberals" left defending liberalism? Funny you should say that because the blog maintained by the Times's very own Paul Krugman is called "The conscience of a liberal". And no one would mistake him for a mealy mouthed centrist.
Nevertheless the general point of the article, that liberalism, or "liberalism", is under attack from both sides of the spectrum, is well taken. Which is partly how you end up with the current occupant of the White House. Because, to paraphrase Bill Maher, the recalcitrant hard left treats an "imperfect friend" as though she were no better than a "deadly enemy".
Nevertheless the general point of the article, that liberalism, or "liberalism", is under attack from both sides of the spectrum, is well taken. Which is partly how you end up with the current occupant of the White House. Because, to paraphrase Bill Maher, the recalcitrant hard left treats an "imperfect friend" as though she were no better than a "deadly enemy".
8
It's simple we view them as collaborators.
1
Liberals espouse generosity.
When they show signs of selfishness, they appear to be hypocrites.
Conservatives are selfish.
When they show signs of selfishness, they are behaving as advertised.
When they show signs of selfishness, they appear to be hypocrites.
Conservatives are selfish.
When they show signs of selfishness, they are behaving as advertised.
21
Centrism is the only way to tame and communicate with extremists right and left.
4
Time for a maximum salary, the seperation of the economic world and the state (like the separation of church and state a la francaise, ie the state establishes and enforces the law, the corporation follow the rules). Time for a government of the people by the people not of the corporations for the rich! That is the result of the liberal conservative alliance it is called corporate fascism, the only difference between libs and cons is to what degree do we enslave the majority of society to cater to whims of the mimority. That is why i will never be a liberal or a conservative. Long live the left, it is the only ideology that truly wants freedom for all and not a few, it's all about economic emancipation of the citizen and not this modern slavery where the cage might be slightly more golden.
3
So much for Krugman's ideas that it is conservatism that has "moved" to the right of Reagan and others. This is proof that it is in fact the left that has gone off the rails. Liberal? Progressive? Leftist? Socialist? Radical?
I think wrong will suffice for all of them.
I think wrong will suffice for all of them.
2
Gone is reason, replaced by emotion. The far left and far right take no responsibility, only blast blame like a firehose. Americans are rife with shadow issues.
3
This has just started the conversation. A point of departure in politics is the meaning of tolerance. The constitution and government acknowledges the rule of majority, but the left insist that tolerance mandates we all be cut by the same mold, thus 0.005% of transgender can impose their will on 99.995% of the people. This way, tolerance is the tyranny of minorities, there can not be democracy with this political framework. Some liberals recognize this problem.
In the middle of an otherwise interesting essay, this just sticks in my craw:
"National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, was expressing his partial approval, writing in Bloomberg View that what contemporary liberalism lacked most was humility. " Humility? Really?
Once again, the pot calling the kettle black. Just how humble is it for a voice, self-identified as rightward-thinking, to support an entire political establishment with nothing more than a minority of American voters? No matter how you slice and dice it, the majority-ruling congressional GOP is a minority party--3 terms running now--in the national percentage of total votes.
It's amazing more isn't made of this historical anomaly.
Up until the 1990's congress only had two--TWO!--instances in 220 years where the minority party was seated as the congressional majority. Now it includes a president seated only by the Electoral College...and a minority of American voters; determined to pass legislation explicitly without Democrat's support, dropping all pretense of political cooperation and compromise, on the basis that 'confrontation' polls better.
But Ramesh Ponnuru, enabled by the likes of Emmett Rensin on the left, have nothing better to whine about than a lack of 'humility'? By the majority of American voters that had every right to expect their superior numbers would at least be acknowledged, if not accommodated in a republic? The world is truly upside down and backwards. Humility is earned through respect.
"National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, was expressing his partial approval, writing in Bloomberg View that what contemporary liberalism lacked most was humility. " Humility? Really?
Once again, the pot calling the kettle black. Just how humble is it for a voice, self-identified as rightward-thinking, to support an entire political establishment with nothing more than a minority of American voters? No matter how you slice and dice it, the majority-ruling congressional GOP is a minority party--3 terms running now--in the national percentage of total votes.
It's amazing more isn't made of this historical anomaly.
Up until the 1990's congress only had two--TWO!--instances in 220 years where the minority party was seated as the congressional majority. Now it includes a president seated only by the Electoral College...and a minority of American voters; determined to pass legislation explicitly without Democrat's support, dropping all pretense of political cooperation and compromise, on the basis that 'confrontation' polls better.
But Ramesh Ponnuru, enabled by the likes of Emmett Rensin on the left, have nothing better to whine about than a lack of 'humility'? By the majority of American voters that had every right to expect their superior numbers would at least be acknowledged, if not accommodated in a republic? The world is truly upside down and backwards. Humility is earned through respect.
9
Sure. Whatever. Rush and Hannity have their opinions and their followers. I don't much care what they think. It's fear itself. Many liberal ideas scare lily-white whites. They apparently fear that their sense of entitlement is being exposed for what it is. Conservative social welfare.
I also tend to dislike Limo-Libs, but I'll take them over Borrow-and-Bomb conservatives.
I also tend to dislike Limo-Libs, but I'll take them over Borrow-and-Bomb conservatives.
11
"Neoliberal" has an entirely different meaning than "liberal". Everyone knows that.
I don't know what this man is smoking. I live in a huge, liberal megalopolis, Chicago. Most people here identify as liberal and call themselves that. No shame, no apologies. We dislike conservatism passionately because we know it doesn't work.
Now, if could could only rid ourselves of our entrenched Democrats and our bitter Republican governor....
I don't know what this man is smoking. I live in a huge, liberal megalopolis, Chicago. Most people here identify as liberal and call themselves that. No shame, no apologies. We dislike conservatism passionately because we know it doesn't work.
Now, if could could only rid ourselves of our entrenched Democrats and our bitter Republican governor....
12
Limbaugh is a has been. He and Gingrich are the founding fathers of hate speech.
12
Why don't liberals/progressives just declare ourselves benchmarkists: we want the best healthcare, best educated, most advanced and just nation in the world, choose how to define that and then figure out how best to get there. All this label talk is fossilized prejudice.
3
Dukakis saw what was going on.
Labels replace arguments.
Ever try to get an 'self proclaimed conservative' explain anything?
Labels replace arguments.
Ever try to get an 'self proclaimed conservative' explain anything?
7
Conservative: Life isn't fair. The playing field is tilted. Work hard, and sooner or later you will be rewarded.
Libertarian: I'll do it my way. Leave me alone.
Narcissist: All for one...me.
Liberal: the playing field is tilted in favor of the haves. Let's reduce the tilt for the greater good.
Progressive: All about insuring opportunity to play for all.
Socialist: Let's level the playing field and redistribute wealth.
Communist: the state owns everything and decides what games we play. Everybody is equal, some more than others.
Libertarian: I'll do it my way. Leave me alone.
Narcissist: All for one...me.
Liberal: the playing field is tilted in favor of the haves. Let's reduce the tilt for the greater good.
Progressive: All about insuring opportunity to play for all.
Socialist: Let's level the playing field and redistribute wealth.
Communist: the state owns everything and decides what games we play. Everybody is equal, some more than others.
2
I recently viewed the Democratic Convention of 1968 on YouTube and we're back to this era. I am a liberal, from the "New Vatican ", not this present day church, anti war, pro choice, equal rights, 1st AND 2nd Ammendment supporter; this is not my sportsman NRA, what the right calls entitlement programs; let them live below poverty without any assistance.I am for access to afordable health care, voting rights,love of country and EVERYTHING ELSE that makes one a compassionate human being.
What in these beliefs can in anyway be considered wrong . My moral majority choose some, has been, 80s real estate section magnate, which the news and media brought back and by coverage endorsed.
The time has come to get coordinated and retake our rights, laws and privileges that have been taken away. C'mon people, it's Class and income, but there are so many more of us! These people of wealth are not showing us any class. I am a liberal! I am a bleeding heart liberal!
What in these beliefs can in anyway be considered wrong . My moral majority choose some, has been, 80s real estate section magnate, which the news and media brought back and by coverage endorsed.
The time has come to get coordinated and retake our rights, laws and privileges that have been taken away. C'mon people, it's Class and income, but there are so many more of us! These people of wealth are not showing us any class. I am a liberal! I am a bleeding heart liberal!
4
Any year, month, day, hour. I am a liberal and make no apologies or defense of it. Will you do a piece on how conservatives are hated by the left an mocked by the Alt Right?
7
Because Americans are largely a dull, stupid people, they love labels.
It is so much easier on the brain to label rather than think.
It is so much easier on the brain to label rather than think.
4
As a European I was brought up with the ideas of classical liberalism which to-day finds its expression in say the politico-economic outlook of The Economist newspaper: a free market, small government, "Enlightenment" position. We also had parties (Socialist/Communist and Reactionary/Fascist) with positions to the left and right which both exhibited bigger roles for the State. Classic liberalism came to dominate 19th Century politics during a century of near universal peace and economic progress. The 30 years War (1914/45) shattered this and "war socialism" ushered in the era of State dominance that we live in to-day. The political struggle now is between the Left and Right Parties (with divergent lineages and names) for who controls the much expanded State and its coercive powers. There is no significant political party in the classical liberal tradition.
Nor is there such in the US although the US got here in a very different manner. The only vestige of such is the (very) small coterie of "Libertarians" within the GOP. In reality we too have parties of the Right (Reactionary/Fascist) and Left (Socialist/Communist) but which we would prefer to name Conservative/Republican and Progressive/Democrat. As a political term Liberal is anachronistic.
Nor is there such in the US although the US got here in a very different manner. The only vestige of such is the (very) small coterie of "Libertarians" within the GOP. In reality we too have parties of the Right (Reactionary/Fascist) and Left (Socialist/Communist) but which we would prefer to name Conservative/Republican and Progressive/Democrat. As a political term Liberal is anachronistic.
So "liberal" is redefined to mean "centrist," another term that is reviled across the political spectrum, and then so many Americans wonder why the country is so polarized. How do we develop a consensus without centrist opinions? This New Left is as every bit dangerous as the Right.
2
I'm perplexed that pundits rarely point out the inconsistencies of many conservatives, who waffle between advocating for slow and measured change from the neoconservative status quo and outright reactionary calls for 19th century government, mores and values. Sen. McConnell is only one of the more prominent examples.
3
The students and professors preventing and banning alternative views from their campuses are not liberal, nor are they conservative. They are scared, simple-minded people with no appreciation for what a liberal is but who have attached themselves to the name 'liberal' because they think it gives them license to be incensed about the bloviating hate-mongers pretending to be conservative.
Truly 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are specks in the rear-view mirror, what we have today different levels of entitled greed or angered needs.
Truly 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are specks in the rear-view mirror, what we have today different levels of entitled greed or angered needs.
2
I find that this article accepts the Fox and Rush characterizations of us "liberals" by and large without actually examining what's been going on for the past three decades which is basically that conservative, right wingers and Republicans have all adopted - a priori - the claim that "liberals are destroying America." While a popular and widely accepted meme by a large segment of American society, the facts lead one to conclude just the opposite in that identity politics, demeaning the poor, minorities, Muslims - the thirty years of demonization, fear mongering and political malfeasance by Republicans and conservatives that give us Trump - have not been liberal themes but conservative ones. The press has been complicit in this falsity by practicing a form of "fair and balanced reporting" that posits that there are two sides to every issue. Birtherism? Voter ID Laws? Income disparity? ALEC? Criminalization of protest? These issues and many more do not have two sides. They are simply wrong. The other glaring lack in this article is the impact of the conservative web of organizations and media outlets that have shaped our political discussions since Ronald Reagan. Liberals have no such network ready to spring into action at the latest 'Liberal Affront" e.g. Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin. But with the election of Trump liberals - progressives and Democratic Socialists too - are now energized realizing just how dangerous is Trump and his war on all things liberal.
5
Seems only when you place an adjective in front of the word liberal (Corporate liberal; centrist liberal; limousine liberal) does the article make sense.
Since Reagan, conservatives have been FULL of humility. There's the "Hastert Rule, the blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination, the promise to block any and all legislation and nominees.
Let's look at a TRUE definition of liberal:
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
JFK speaking to the NY State Liberal Party accepting its endorsement in 1960.
The REAL concern conservatives have today is that liberals will adopt conservative TACTICS (repeat, TACTICS, again, TACTICS, NOT policies) and storm back stronger than ever.
Since Reagan, conservatives have been FULL of humility. There's the "Hastert Rule, the blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination, the promise to block any and all legislation and nominees.
Let's look at a TRUE definition of liberal:
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
JFK speaking to the NY State Liberal Party accepting its endorsement in 1960.
The REAL concern conservatives have today is that liberals will adopt conservative TACTICS (repeat, TACTICS, again, TACTICS, NOT policies) and storm back stronger than ever.
4
I am proud to be a Centrist.
All ideologues, from either side, deserve to be mocked. The real problem with American politics is that the dearest policies of both sides have been discredited: in a slow-growth global economy, we can no longer afford the big social programs of the left, such as free college for all. And the trickle-down economics have, after decades of promises, failed to deliver on the promises of the right. Neither side seems to have the answers to the major problems of our time. These answers can only be found with the cooperation and pragmaticism of the center.
All ideologues, from either side, deserve to be mocked. The real problem with American politics is that the dearest policies of both sides have been discredited: in a slow-growth global economy, we can no longer afford the big social programs of the left, such as free college for all. And the trickle-down economics have, after decades of promises, failed to deliver on the promises of the right. Neither side seems to have the answers to the major problems of our time. These answers can only be found with the cooperation and pragmaticism of the center.
2
"Now the political left is expressing its hatred of liberals, too. " Mmm, not so much. Okay, maybe Berners and others too dim to realize that our government only accomplishes anything, for better or for worse, when there is compromise. And the shift has been rightward for a long time, so we end up with "liberals" who in other times would have been "conservatives", and some conservatives who would never have been elected in the past because they're complete whackjobs. As a proud liberal with yes, centrist tendencies, I'd like to see us get back to the brass tacks of economics and talking to the poor: Figuring out how we're going to make them less so and keep the U.S. productive as we head into the age of automation.
3
Quite a lengthy but interesting read. I find the labeling of liberal or conservative a tool to separate the masses. The issue is the MLM with its grand standing of the extremes of these political views. You see news on BLM or Antifa and later see tea party or other conservative extremes. We as viewers are then subconsciously throttled into one of these two group.
Most of us will fit into the normal curve and personal beliefs on either side of the political and social spectrums.
Most of us will fit into the normal curve and personal beliefs on either side of the political and social spectrums.
Great photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt. If only we had a stable and strong president these days. I don't give a button if I am a liberal, a luddite or a lame duck, but the word 'moderation' has seldom been popular in America.
2
Oh yeah, a proud liberal here. All the liberal bashers seem to forget, or don't know, or don't want to to know, it was FDR's liberal policies that laid the groundwork for the great middle class most of us grew up in. The same middle class slowly being eaten away by the policies of the know nothing centrists and conservatives. There will be another economic crisis, and liberals will save the country again. If we're lucky enough to get another FDR.
7
look for young Joe Kennedy, III
1
While labels often serve the purpose of providing a framework to negotiate meaning, ultimately, few people live in such highly binary (e.g., liberal or conservative) structures. People are much more complex, and their own experiences provide a subjective framework that is far more rich and meaningful then one term can possibly encompass. Yes, a liberal, for example, might tend to be more open-minded, less biased and discriminatory, caring of others welfare and being, etc. But, that same person may also want anti-crime legislation that protects all individuals and an education system that offers some testing but not testing that funds corporate pockets at the expense of children (again, another example). Part of the problem seems to be, again, that people are labeled and this is due to most people's incapacity or willingness to see things in complex, nuanced ways.
I have always argued that one problem with progressive ideology and thought processes is that they seem far more complex then conservative ideology. When I explain to people that our society (and this includes all our major institutions) is racialized, many respond by saying that even if that were true, there is no reason for "those people" to burn down their neighborhoods during a riot. Who has the time or energy to explain to a person with that mindset all the complexities of racism in our society and how that provokes "those people" to such outrage? The answer: the liberal professor!
I have always argued that one problem with progressive ideology and thought processes is that they seem far more complex then conservative ideology. When I explain to people that our society (and this includes all our major institutions) is racialized, many respond by saying that even if that were true, there is no reason for "those people" to burn down their neighborhoods during a riot. Who has the time or energy to explain to a person with that mindset all the complexities of racism in our society and how that provokes "those people" to such outrage? The answer: the liberal professor!
2
I don't like labels and I don't think anybody should be wedded to a label. There are liberals with good ideas and conservatives with good ideas. But republicans' stripes have not changed. It is the party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich
4
I am happy to be called a liberal, but it's certainly a vague description now. How can a word retain its meaning in worlds as different as the 1930s and the 2010s? We have learned a lot in that time. It became obvious that communism was not just a naïve idea, but had turned into a malignant failure, totalitarian and murderous. Such seemingly benign ideas as wage price controls showed that economics really does matter. The key failure of leftist thought is the denial of economic facts. Markets are amoral, not immoral.
I have thought about how to label myself and I came up with phrase radical pragmatist. I share the goals of the left in most cases. I want to see LGBT people treated with respect. I want to see economic opportunity and success distributed more evenly. I want to see universal healthcare. But pragmatism is the best way to get there. If a market based solution will work, great! If a government heavy solution appears to be the only way, as in health care, then great!
It seems that only Liberals occupy this ground. The left and the right doing to their holy principles and ignore experience that shows many of those cherishes principles fail.
It is easy to present a coherent case for any extreme philosophy. When you are in the center saying both extremes are bad, it's hard to make a simple case. You constantly have defend on two fronts.
I have thought about how to label myself and I came up with phrase radical pragmatist. I share the goals of the left in most cases. I want to see LGBT people treated with respect. I want to see economic opportunity and success distributed more evenly. I want to see universal healthcare. But pragmatism is the best way to get there. If a market based solution will work, great! If a government heavy solution appears to be the only way, as in health care, then great!
It seems that only Liberals occupy this ground. The left and the right doing to their holy principles and ignore experience that shows many of those cherishes principles fail.
It is easy to present a coherent case for any extreme philosophy. When you are in the center saying both extremes are bad, it's hard to make a simple case. You constantly have defend on two fronts.
4
Well written article. I'm a Trump-weary moderate Republican and to me the American labels of "liberal" and "progressive" are the opposite of what the Left mostly stands for. Their instincts to legislate, litigate, tax, and spend are more accurately described as statist than liberty or progress. I think they'd see that if they reflected on it.
"it’s easy to see how [liberal] has become the word we use to deride the status quo. For the left, that’s a politics in which government cravenly submits to corporate power and cultural debates distract from material needs. "
If this once-venerated term has become an epithet in the mouths of growing numbers of critics from across the political map, the place to look for correction - for change - is among the doyens of the status quo.
And, just a note: improving the material well-being and dignity of the average American might cure this problem. The man in the arty photo with the L on his head understood this; our contemporary Democratic elite....... not so much.
If this once-venerated term has become an epithet in the mouths of growing numbers of critics from across the political map, the place to look for correction - for change - is among the doyens of the status quo.
And, just a note: improving the material well-being and dignity of the average American might cure this problem. The man in the arty photo with the L on his head understood this; our contemporary Democratic elite....... not so much.
2
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
4
I don't care what you call it, but I am with Bernie, and he is with me, from what I can see. Social democrat? Scandinavian model? Not sure what to call it, but, I believe in a role for government that is distinct from business. I believe in appropriate regulation. I believe in social and economic safety nets. I believe in being fair to all people regardless of identity category. I think we can have community with everyone. I think taxes are necessary. I think government should be in charge of building infrastructure that benefits everyone. I am against toll roads. I am for opportunity for all. I am for a strong public educational system. I am for "integration" in the sense that we do not retreat into identity factions and interact only with people whom we consider to be like ourselves. I think small businesses should have special tax breaks. I think the very wealthy should pay higher taxes. Government needs to mitigate the excesses of extreme wealth, for the good of all, including the extremely wealthy. If you, dear reader, can understand the last phrase I wrote, then we probably share a similar view of politics and society.
It is no accident that Scandinavian countries have the highest happiness indexes. Dear readers, figure out why.
It is no accident that Scandinavian countries have the highest happiness indexes. Dear readers, figure out why.
2
Perhaps the more appropriate label to apply to the Left would be progressive. Until Democrats successfully rebrand their message as one of inclusivity and create a policy agenda that truly addresses the plight of and helps the lower and middle classes -- conservatives will continue to bamboozle them into believing that their "compassionate," Right wing conservatism has their interests in mind when in fact all they really care about is strengthening their economic & political power. Part of the Democrats' policy agenda must include emptying their pockets of corporate greed too!
American liberalism was fine under Roosevelt and LBJ, when it truly was social liberalism. Under Clinton it became more classically liberal, a sort of capitalism-with-a-human face that appealed to new economy upper-middle class types. Unfortunately, everyone else outside of that top quintile does not have their interests served by a classically liberal program, so why should they bother supporting one?
In Europe, there are social democratic parties and there are conservative parties. The liberals are basically extinct as a political force. As our country matures and becomes less and less of a meritocracy with a more rigid class structure (just like in European countries) liberalism as a political force in America will go the way of the dinosaur. There will be socialists and conservatives and no middle ground. It's inevitable and it's high time people stop pretending that things are not going to go that way and start preparing for living in a world with that kind of divide.
In Europe, there are social democratic parties and there are conservative parties. The liberals are basically extinct as a political force. As our country matures and becomes less and less of a meritocracy with a more rigid class structure (just like in European countries) liberalism as a political force in America will go the way of the dinosaur. There will be socialists and conservatives and no middle ground. It's inevitable and it's high time people stop pretending that things are not going to go that way and start preparing for living in a world with that kind of divide.
1
JFK said it best: “If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
2
Great read. As someone who considers themselves a Liberal, I really am trying to help fix the image that many Liberals have put themselves in. I see Liberalism as a third way forward, similar to what Emmanuel Macron has done with En Marche. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, it can be in the Center, or Center-Left.
Liberal morphed into neo-liberal. Austerity, regime changing wars, no government health care, no jobs programs. And so the Democrats became another party of the rich, just like the Republicans. And both are fronts for the Pentagon , Wall Street and the corporations .
1
The nomenclature is meaningless.
Modern American leftists (Bernie bros, etc) are infantile in their delusion that government is the answer to most things. Yes, some government regulation is essential (SEC, FTC [anti-trust]) and the GOP’s defense of things like (a) supply side voodoo nonsense and (b) more guns being the answer to gun violence, is beyond insulting. But the New Left is utterly unacceptable; to the point of civil war being a better option than the enactment of the distorted fairy tale visions of Pocahantas and Bernie.
Modern American leftists (Bernie bros, etc) are infantile in their delusion that government is the answer to most things. Yes, some government regulation is essential (SEC, FTC [anti-trust]) and the GOP’s defense of things like (a) supply side voodoo nonsense and (b) more guns being the answer to gun violence, is beyond insulting. But the New Left is utterly unacceptable; to the point of civil war being a better option than the enactment of the distorted fairy tale visions of Pocahantas and Bernie.
Reagan may not have been the first to do so, but he was the one who successfully turned "liberal" into a pejorative. One more reason to mourn his impact on American society and culture.
4
The Democrats brand of Corporate Liberalism has utterly failed. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of that, and now we have Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders brand of left politics is the direction the Democratic party has to go in order to galvanize voters to come out in the polls; take a look at what the youth believe in. Socialism and communism are no longer bad words. The tides are changing, and the Democratic party needs to adjust, or they're going to continue to lose. Again, look Ossoff; more money sunk into him than any other congressional candidate in history, and he lost. Why? He ran on nothing. We need universal healthcare, we need free college, we need a universal basic income.
As the republicans start to literally kill people through healthcare, the Democrats need to step up and start running on a platform that will save lives and win.
As the republicans start to literally kill people through healthcare, the Democrats need to step up and start running on a platform that will save lives and win.
The author struggles to define exactly what "liberal" means, despite insisting that the label's target "is always clear" - possibly because its target is anything but clear. The metaphor that liberals occupy a bigger tent is based upon more than a grain of truth.
Besides diversity, the only trait liberals share is a higher average intellect than pseudo-conservatives. PCs characterize that as "smug", as "aloof", but in general we're more educated and more intelligent. That, too, is the truth. Deal with it.
Besides diversity, the only trait liberals share is a higher average intellect than pseudo-conservatives. PCs characterize that as "smug", as "aloof", but in general we're more educated and more intelligent. That, too, is the truth. Deal with it.
3
Liberals have as their fatal flaw their disrespect for other people's hard earned money, spent without a sense of the consequences.
They have put us into irredeemable debt, and vastly burdened the next generation, all in the name of good intentions.
This invalidates the world view of liberals, as it is essentially just another form of dishonesty, programs promised to gain re-election, creating a massive debt for someone else to pay.
1
Liberals put us in debt? Is that the new label for Ronald Reagan and George W Bush? Fake history has taken its place alongside fake news.
1
Just another vast right wing conspiracy.
1
I found this article interesting and thought provoking. I am however distressed at the wanton editing of the excellent portrait of President Roosevelt. I see the artist's intent but it is wholly inappropriate.
16
The editor fell victim to the tendency to pander to juvenile emotional appeal instead of relying on the intellectual content to gain support.
When you see your enemy winning the votes of fools by pandering the correct response is to educate them about that appeal, what it means about those appealing to them in that way and what they think of those they are appealing to, and trust that they will do the right thing and make efforts to educate themselves even more.
The worst thing ever done to a free voting public was to perpetrate the idea that you are good enough as born to vote. Ignoring entirely the need for education and rational reasoned thought to develop the mind to make proper choices in those votes.
When you see your enemy winning the votes of fools by pandering the correct response is to educate them about that appeal, what it means about those appealing to them in that way and what they think of those they are appealing to, and trust that they will do the right thing and make efforts to educate themselves even more.
The worst thing ever done to a free voting public was to perpetrate the idea that you are good enough as born to vote. Ignoring entirely the need for education and rational reasoned thought to develop the mind to make proper choices in those votes.
1
I really do not care how the right wing and the clueless far left who gave us trump define liberalism. I am a proud liberal now and forever. You look at facts and move forward. Really, it is that simple.
67
If Liberals/Democrats don't start by looking at the fact of their disastrous electoral losses over the past seven years, and the reasons for them, they ain't movin' nowhere anytime soon.
It's no clueless, it's progress. You know, something the rest of the west has picked up on, but liberals can't seem to wrap their head around?
Progressives aren't going to carry your dead weight anymore. If you want to win anytime soon, you need to move forward, not stagnate as you have for so long.
Progressives aren't going to carry your dead weight anymore. If you want to win anytime soon, you need to move forward, not stagnate as you have for so long.
Runaway: Yesssssssss!
1
Easy. Liberals want our country to be more like Canada. Conservatives want it to be more like Mexico.
38
Guess who's won that fight? :(
Not Mexico, Russia.
1
Or more like Russia.
I concede that many on the left have allowed the right to turn the word "liberal" into a 4-letter word. The way to fight back is to proudly wear the word liberal like a cape, much like the right did with "deplorable." A word can only be used against you if you let it.
50
There is no need to fight back, it is not your obligation to defend a political ideology or make the word culturally acceptable. But maybe we should all feel obligated to help fellow workers. Being part of the labor class is the only label that matters, and as long as we are tricked into dividing ourselves up further, we will always lose, not just to the right, but to the capitalists who are actually in power.
2
@Andy
I sympathize, but I have a problem with your argument because, while I can accept liberalism, I don't self-identify as a (classic) liberal--especially when it comes to economics. Neither am I an American liberal, with its bolted-on libertarian streak of decentralized authority. I identify as a Progressive, one who seeks a majority-elected central authority strong enough to implement federal laws and decisions effectively, but not so strong as to dispense with due process. The closest antecedent would be a New Dealer of the 1930s, when government tried things, different things, driven by empirical research. And if it didn't work as expected, we tried something else. That was the time of Ideas. Today we're mired in the time of Influence, which diminishes Ideas into poker chips; abstract chips of plastic, of subjective value.
You wanna MAGA? Bring back a fair vote by ending the practice of gerrymandering, remove the private subsidy for media access to the public (aka campaign finance reform), and limit the influence-peddling of congress.
I sympathize, but I have a problem with your argument because, while I can accept liberalism, I don't self-identify as a (classic) liberal--especially when it comes to economics. Neither am I an American liberal, with its bolted-on libertarian streak of decentralized authority. I identify as a Progressive, one who seeks a majority-elected central authority strong enough to implement federal laws and decisions effectively, but not so strong as to dispense with due process. The closest antecedent would be a New Dealer of the 1930s, when government tried things, different things, driven by empirical research. And if it didn't work as expected, we tried something else. That was the time of Ideas. Today we're mired in the time of Influence, which diminishes Ideas into poker chips; abstract chips of plastic, of subjective value.
You wanna MAGA? Bring back a fair vote by ending the practice of gerrymandering, remove the private subsidy for media access to the public (aka campaign finance reform), and limit the influence-peddling of congress.
2
It was not "used against" them it was used to whip up the predisposed into anger and righteous indignation about the fantasies they had around that word.
Liberal and proud.
47
While there are certainly exceptions, liberals are shallow thinkers. They fail to appreciate the long term consequences of their policies (e.g., protecting illegal immigrants leads to more illegal immigration). Liberals desperately want to thought of as "cool." A pathetic lot to be sure.
8
That is ridiculous, considering that the long term effects of the Republican Presidents in my lifetime have had only long term negative consequences. I am liberal and it has nothing to do with being "cool". Believe it or not, we actually think being kind to people and having policies which help people is the right thing to do. This comment reveals the central conceited of Republicans, treating liberals like children, when in fact we are adults who feel responsibility towards our fellow citizens, unlike the right-wing.
75
The illegal immigrants are here only because business owners look the other way and hire them. This has been going on for decades. They don't want to use E-verify, which would eliminate this problem, because they want cheap labor. Business owners who hire illegal immigrants are the ones failing to appreciate the long term consequences of their greed. Plain and simple.
Liberals believe that once a person is in this country they now have rights as human beings. You don't exploit people for years then kick them out when they are no longer of use. That's not decent behavior.
Please don't call liberals shallow thinkers. I believe my explanation shows who the shallow thinkers really are.
Liberals believe that once a person is in this country they now have rights as human beings. You don't exploit people for years then kick them out when they are no longer of use. That's not decent behavior.
Please don't call liberals shallow thinkers. I believe my explanation shows who the shallow thinkers really are.
3
I could care less about being "cool." I'll settle for not being duped into voting against my own self interest by forces that could not care less about the long term results of their actions - weather those forces come from the left or the right. That's what liberalism is.
3
If one were to describe "liberal" from what is printed in the NYT, it'd be an ideology that condones:
vandalism, setting fires, and violence against conservative speakers on college campuses
hatred for the police
shame for their own country
admiration for communism where everyone is poor but gets free education
admiration for cultures that kill gays and women for agenda purposes
indoctrination of school students to be ashamed of this country and denigrate those who died in wars defending this country
complete intolerance of views that differ from the liberal ideology where it's OK to attack and spit on those who disagree
vandalism, setting fires, and violence against conservative speakers on college campuses
hatred for the police
shame for their own country
admiration for communism where everyone is poor but gets free education
admiration for cultures that kill gays and women for agenda purposes
indoctrination of school students to be ashamed of this country and denigrate those who died in wars defending this country
complete intolerance of views that differ from the liberal ideology where it's OK to attack and spit on those who disagree
17
All of these are characterizations which some may feel entitled to, but do so without warrant.
1
alt righty
2
I am a proud liberal and I will tell you none of what you say is true. Not any of it.
4
I've always thought of myself as a liberal since I first became conscious of politics. I understood it to mean someone who was open minded and tolerant of opposing view points, embraced the full spectrum of society as members of their community and felt that members of a community had profound responsibilities to each other. Since then I have learned about the complicated and somewhat contradictory political history of this term (and this article taught me a good bit more about that). But on a gut level that is still what it means to me. When I hear about shutting down speakers on a campus or corporations using free trade agreements to exploit people neither of those things feel liberal to me. Nobody ever explained to me what a liberal was i just understood since before i can remember that liberal fundamentally meant treating people well and liberal was what I should aspire to be. Maybe I was wrong or misinformed but the ideals i associated with the term then are still the ones that guide my politics now.
66
The problem is one of definition. There are two kinds of liberals: behavioral liberals and economic liberals.
Behavioral liberals emphasize equal rights for all, freedom to do what one wants as long as one is not hurting anyone, and redress for past wrongs. Moves for racial and religious equality, affirmative action for under-represented groups, gun control, reproductive rights, and rights for women and GLBT Americans are behavioral liberalism.
Economic liberals want a living wage, workers' rights to organize, a progressive tax system, a strong social safety net, and a sturdy physical and social infrastructure.
A person can be either or both, but they are not the same thing.
That's why a person whose religion forbids homosexuality may look at laws granting equal rights to sexual minorities and decide that he or she "hates liberals." Yet if asked whether employers should offer a fair wage for a fair days work, if Social Security and Medicare should be shored up, and whether we should have good roads and clean drinking water, that same person would probably say "yes."
At the other extreme are people who say, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." This is common statement among the affluent. It means, "I like not having restrictions on my behavior and I'm too enlightened to hate or despise anyone, but don't raise my taxes or adversely affect the stock market.
So before you decide whether you love or hate liberals, decide which kind you mean.
Behavioral liberals emphasize equal rights for all, freedom to do what one wants as long as one is not hurting anyone, and redress for past wrongs. Moves for racial and religious equality, affirmative action for under-represented groups, gun control, reproductive rights, and rights for women and GLBT Americans are behavioral liberalism.
Economic liberals want a living wage, workers' rights to organize, a progressive tax system, a strong social safety net, and a sturdy physical and social infrastructure.
A person can be either or both, but they are not the same thing.
That's why a person whose religion forbids homosexuality may look at laws granting equal rights to sexual minorities and decide that he or she "hates liberals." Yet if asked whether employers should offer a fair wage for a fair days work, if Social Security and Medicare should be shored up, and whether we should have good roads and clean drinking water, that same person would probably say "yes."
At the other extreme are people who say, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." This is common statement among the affluent. It means, "I like not having restrictions on my behavior and I'm too enlightened to hate or despise anyone, but don't raise my taxes or adversely affect the stock market.
So before you decide whether you love or hate liberals, decide which kind you mean.
20
The definition of word "liberal" has been changed in the public mind over time. The original "liberals" were in the time of FDR, and Harry Hopkins was probably the epitomy of what it was meant to be a liberal. It meant supporting the working people of this country in their time of need with relief programs financed by the federal government to prevent them from starving to death or being kicked out of their homes by their landlords because they were unemployed and could not earn any money. A "liberal" supported the working people, period. And the word doesn't mean any of the things the likes of Rush Limbaugh says of them. And, unfortunately, many people self identifying as "libersals" don't understand what the word means, either - which gives the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter all the fodder they need to denounce the champions of the working people, and to elevate the capitalist class to a beneficent godlike status.
15
A liberal is one who wants this country to be more like Canada. A conservative is one who wants this country to be more like Mexico.
10
I've heard it said that conservatives want other countries to become more like America. Liberals want America to become more like Denmark.
7
Aggie99, if your definition is correct, I am a liberal.
3
an aggie joke?
Open minded? Generous? Happy to be liberal. Always baffles me that people think it's a bad thing because of the way right-wingers intone it.
19
Don't " mess " with me, and I won't " mess " with you. That's my prime motto, and I AM A LIBERAL.
10
The entire advanced, educated world is liberal. This is the essential problem of the right and far right in America. They are seeking to hold back the tide with sand dunes and shovels.
What I mean by liberal in this context is the embrace of change and the modern world, not necessarily a repudiation of old values, but a willingness to adapt and change and use information and knowledge as guideposts to the future.
We are a mess in this country. We have confused religious, ethical, cultural and general outlooks with politics and government. It is one whole, ugly ball of wax, rolling down the Interstates at 78.2 MPH, when the cops are looking and faster when they aren't. In fact, we start with a cultural orientation based on birth and how daddy and mommy earned money and we don't generally change except to become more fiscally conservative if we happen to make money ourselves ("money" being defined as having significant savings/assets).
We missed out on the serious threat of communism and the ideological education received by Europeans. The result is that our political divisions are...stupid. They are whatever politicians tell us.
I will never be a liberal but, heaven forfend, don't call me a conservative except in the sense that I value the unique characteristics and accomplishments of our democracy. Americans used to be pragmatists first and always. We have been hijacked by phony ideologies that change with the winds and serve no value other than to divide us permanently.
What I mean by liberal in this context is the embrace of change and the modern world, not necessarily a repudiation of old values, but a willingness to adapt and change and use information and knowledge as guideposts to the future.
We are a mess in this country. We have confused religious, ethical, cultural and general outlooks with politics and government. It is one whole, ugly ball of wax, rolling down the Interstates at 78.2 MPH, when the cops are looking and faster when they aren't. In fact, we start with a cultural orientation based on birth and how daddy and mommy earned money and we don't generally change except to become more fiscally conservative if we happen to make money ourselves ("money" being defined as having significant savings/assets).
We missed out on the serious threat of communism and the ideological education received by Europeans. The result is that our political divisions are...stupid. They are whatever politicians tell us.
I will never be a liberal but, heaven forfend, don't call me a conservative except in the sense that I value the unique characteristics and accomplishments of our democracy. Americans used to be pragmatists first and always. We have been hijacked by phony ideologies that change with the winds and serve no value other than to divide us permanently.
12
Thank you for this comment, especially, "We have been hijacked by phony ideologies that change with the winds and serve no value other than to divide us permanently." I don't think America can be great, much less good, unless we confront this painful binary between the right and the left, heal this divide, decide that we are for one another (and racism can play no part in that) and collaborate to find solutions to our many problems, solutions that are essentially pragmatic.
1
Disagreeing with someone's stated and put forward point of view is not "abuse."
3
I'm an FDR/Truman/Kennedy/LBJ liberal and proud of it.
23
Kennedy was more center-left if anything though. Not saying it's a bad thing, but LBJ was certainly more left-tacking than him.
5
"Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other."
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
Zhang, all these quotes are from JFK. ..Sounds pretty liberal to me.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
Zhang, all these quotes are from JFK. ..Sounds pretty liberal to me.
2
"Liberal", like "feminist", has had its definition redefined by right wing media propagandists (of which there is an overstocked lot).
Don't be fooled. Controlling the words and their meaning is known as "doublespeak" in George Orwell's 1984 and other dystopian examples.
Critical thinking is needed now more than ever.
Don't be fooled. Controlling the words and their meaning is known as "doublespeak" in George Orwell's 1984 and other dystopian examples.
Critical thinking is needed now more than ever.
40
Yes. The same has happened with the term "fake news," at breakneck speed. In November 2016, it referred to false stories created knowingly by a few people, who posted them on social media for tremendous ad profit. These people largely saw themselves in much the same way writers at The Weekly World News must-entertainment, making a buck. Pedophile Pizza Parlor, anyone? Surely they thought most of their stories wouldn't pass the sniff test and overestimated our skepticism; at least one lukewarmly atoned for his role in the election outcome. But the more clicks and shares, the more dollars rolled in.
Within a couple months, Trump and his backers turned the term "fake news" on its head by applying it to professional news outlets. They are masters at distortion, confusing people so much that they are grasping for true North-and then offering a simple narrative that flatters the self-described everyman.
Whatever your political or ideological stripes, the speed of this language-flipping should be of note. As a school librarian I feel compelled to archive the thread for a complete understanding, to keep track of how and why labels and shorthand are created. One to watch: alt-right. White supremacists are wearing it like a hipster lapel button.
Within a couple months, Trump and his backers turned the term "fake news" on its head by applying it to professional news outlets. They are masters at distortion, confusing people so much that they are grasping for true North-and then offering a simple narrative that flatters the self-described everyman.
Whatever your political or ideological stripes, the speed of this language-flipping should be of note. As a school librarian I feel compelled to archive the thread for a complete understanding, to keep track of how and why labels and shorthand are created. One to watch: alt-right. White supremacists are wearing it like a hipster lapel button.
2
Post war western liberalism did not rely on big financial firms or billionaires for their funding. Liberals did not serve wealth - they served the people.
Corporate concentration, think tanks in the service of the 0.001% churning out propaganda, super pacs, Citizens United, ..., have captured the Democratic party and turned it into a neoliberal party. Neoliberal does not actually mean new liberal, it means a corporate takeover of the party to achieve illiberal goals.
Bernie was correct - the Democratic party (the people in administration in the party, its bureaucratic leadership) is not liberal and that is the problem.
Corporate concentration, think tanks in the service of the 0.001% churning out propaganda, super pacs, Citizens United, ..., have captured the Democratic party and turned it into a neoliberal party. Neoliberal does not actually mean new liberal, it means a corporate takeover of the party to achieve illiberal goals.
Bernie was correct - the Democratic party (the people in administration in the party, its bureaucratic leadership) is not liberal and that is the problem.
11
The meanings of words have always drifted, and the word "liberal" is no exception. Dictionaries and adults are usually slow to catch on to new twists or whole new meanings, but youths jump on the new bandwagon right away. When we discuss the word " liberal", you must consider who is the speaker, who is the listener or the intended audience and when, where, and in what context we are discussing it. There is no use longing for a mythical time when words had rock solid meanings that everyone understood; that time never really existed.
Republicans, and more specifically the hard right, have taken the ideas of Lewis Carrol, Goebbels, and Orwell to heart and learned to use them very effectively. Democrats still function on the absurd idea that real facts do indeed exist and all they need to do is present them logically to the electorate. They have been wrong for generations now. "I have a 40 point program for that" will always lose the argument to "make America great again", whatever that may mean and periodically shouting " corrupt Hillary" and "fake news". It really doesn't matter what label the Dems choose, the are gifted at losing under any of them until they accept and use the linguistic rules of the game.
Republicans, and more specifically the hard right, have taken the ideas of Lewis Carrol, Goebbels, and Orwell to heart and learned to use them very effectively. Democrats still function on the absurd idea that real facts do indeed exist and all they need to do is present them logically to the electorate. They have been wrong for generations now. "I have a 40 point program for that" will always lose the argument to "make America great again", whatever that may mean and periodically shouting " corrupt Hillary" and "fake news". It really doesn't matter what label the Dems choose, the are gifted at losing under any of them until they accept and use the linguistic rules of the game.
6
The reason "liberal" has became an epithet is that it has devolved into feel-goodism and "look at me-ism." Just say you're "for" the environment, poor, immigrants, LGBTQ, public education, daisies and sunshine, and that's enough. Actual outcomes or methods of your proposed policies are besides the point.
Go ahead and bankrupt your local municipality by voting against necessary cuts to government workers and social programs to show that you're "for public workers/services." Vote for raising the minimum wage by 200% to show you're "for working people," though it's those same working people who will be priced out of a job, and small businesses which will go out of business. Etc., etc.
It's really quite easy to be a liberal: loudly claim you're a Good Guy who wants Good Things for others and you're done. Your good intentions are an end in and of themselves.
Go ahead and bankrupt your local municipality by voting against necessary cuts to government workers and social programs to show that you're "for public workers/services." Vote for raising the minimum wage by 200% to show you're "for working people," though it's those same working people who will be priced out of a job, and small businesses which will go out of business. Etc., etc.
It's really quite easy to be a liberal: loudly claim you're a Good Guy who wants Good Things for others and you're done. Your good intentions are an end in and of themselves.
3
"Vote for raising the minimum wage by 200% to show you're "for working people," though it's those same working people who will be priced out of a job, and small businesses which will go out of business. Etc., etc."
Name one place in the U.S. Where such a thing happened.
Hasn't ever. Just another lie from the fascists.
Name one place in the U.S. Where such a thing happened.
Hasn't ever. Just another lie from the fascists.
2
When I was in high school, a classmate was a Goldwater conservative Republican. We went with him to hear Goldwater in the old Madison Square Garden, which shook as Goldwater spoke. A few weeks later, our friend`s father was called on the carpet by his union and told to rein in his son. Almost everything Goldwater stood for, I despised. Yet I believed that he and my friend had every right to say whatever they wanted. It was that simple.
I participated in one of the first welfare rights` marches and watched in horror as the union hardhats along with the Wall Streeters cursed and derided poor people of color and whites who were only demanding their right to be treated with dignity. In `63, I was against that horrible Vietnam War which saw millions die - including my best childhood friend. Fast forward - forget labels this 74 y.o. believes that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself/herself and of his/her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his/her control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." UN Declaration of Rights - December , 1948. I would add the importance of a free well- rounded education.
I participated in one of the first welfare rights` marches and watched in horror as the union hardhats along with the Wall Streeters cursed and derided poor people of color and whites who were only demanding their right to be treated with dignity. In `63, I was against that horrible Vietnam War which saw millions die - including my best childhood friend. Fast forward - forget labels this 74 y.o. believes that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself/herself and of his/her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his/her control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." UN Declaration of Rights - December , 1948. I would add the importance of a free well- rounded education.
16
Once upon a time being a Liberal meant being for Free Speech and discussion and debate: "the remedy for bad speech is more speech" was a common Liberal refrain.
BUt not anymore. Critics of Liberalism on the Left have no problems rioting to prevent an opponent from speaking. Our colleges and universities have Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings. Liberals in our corporate media, instead of shaming this behavior, tolerate these developments and cover for their Far Left critics.
Once upon a time Liberals stood up for working men and women. Then in the 90's they began to throw them under the bus with outsourcing and by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, with the help of their friends on the Right.
Once Upon a time Liberal meant embracing Reason and Science. Now the same Liberals tell us their are 72 genders.
BUt not anymore. Critics of Liberalism on the Left have no problems rioting to prevent an opponent from speaking. Our colleges and universities have Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings. Liberals in our corporate media, instead of shaming this behavior, tolerate these developments and cover for their Far Left critics.
Once upon a time Liberals stood up for working men and women. Then in the 90's they began to throw them under the bus with outsourcing and by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, with the help of their friends on the Right.
Once Upon a time Liberal meant embracing Reason and Science. Now the same Liberals tell us their are 72 genders.
7
Ah, sir, you speak of leftists, not "liberals."
9
Conflation can be such an effective tactic when it is aimed at those with short attention spans.
1
Free speech means the government cannot restrict speech. I don't know any one on the left who is proposing state censorship or book burning. What they support is public shaming and ostracizing the Milos, the Coulters, and their ilk. Just as I'd kick someone out of my house for spouting racist, homophobic ideas, these people are being told loud and clear, "You're not welcome in our community. Go visit the Fox News studios, they'll love you there, but get out of here."
2
"For the committed leftist, the ‘‘liberal’’ is a weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class."
No, Mr. Saval, you have it backwards. The problem is that "weak-minded, market-friendly, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class CENTRISTS" have appropriated the word "liberal" to describe themselves, when they are no such thing. A centrist is a centrist. Claiming that a centrist is really a liberal is no different than claiming that 2 + 2 = 5, or that down is up. It is factually incorrect, BY DEFINITION.
"As the insult gathered steam in the ’90s, Bill Clinton was studiously aiming for the political center"
Exactly. "Aiming for the center" is, by definition, NOT "liberal". Just because the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic Party establishment persist in calling themselves "liberal" doesn't make it so. The "far left" does not oppose them because they are "liberal" - it opposes them because they are not.
No, Mr. Saval, you have it backwards. The problem is that "weak-minded, market-friendly, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class CENTRISTS" have appropriated the word "liberal" to describe themselves, when they are no such thing. A centrist is a centrist. Claiming that a centrist is really a liberal is no different than claiming that 2 + 2 = 5, or that down is up. It is factually incorrect, BY DEFINITION.
"As the insult gathered steam in the ’90s, Bill Clinton was studiously aiming for the political center"
Exactly. "Aiming for the center" is, by definition, NOT "liberal". Just because the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic Party establishment persist in calling themselves "liberal" doesn't make it so. The "far left" does not oppose them because they are "liberal" - it opposes them because they are not.
22
I consider myself a liberal and have no idea why it's mocked. One of the qualities of a liberal is having an open mind--seems like we could use a bit more open mindedness!
16
Started reading this, but as an 84-year old liberal - at least what I thought was "a liberal" - I just don't have time to finish this article. Who writes the definition for different words anyway? Those of us in the real world often don't even know what the definitions are to what we think of ourselves!
At the end of the article it states Saval last wrote about the trend of "turning abandoned railways lines into urban parks." He is advised to stick to that kind of article!
At the end of the article it states Saval last wrote about the trend of "turning abandoned railways lines into urban parks." He is advised to stick to that kind of article!
12
I was a liberal most of my life and was proud of it. I even voted for Ralph Nader for the same reason that people voted for Bernie Sanders in the last Democratic primaries. In liberalism I saw a deep and rich intellectual tradition of moderation, common sense and selfless ambition to cure the ills of the world. But that form of liberalism no longer exists and the term liberal has been appropriated by an amalgam of special interests that are focused on their own liberation and social standing. While much of their basic aims are justified, their impatience and intolerance of the socialization process necessary to change cultural norms has radicalizes their supporters and put them at odds with society at large. Even President Obama did not support gay marriage until his second term and for all the rhetoric and protesting, their right to marry was not won on the streets but in the courts of law. Their lack of faith in our system of government and their lack of respect for the American people as a whole created a deep fissure between old liberal like me and neoliberal that have appropriate our banners but not our cause. Today I find myself engaged in active opposition to their condescension of Trump supporters and hatred of all things conservative. I also oppose their intellectual laziness and absence of a cohesive ideology that unifies their highly fragmented aims. These are not Liberals. Liberalism is dead, it died of a bleeding heart.
5
When it's time to actually legislate, neither "Democrat" nor "Republican" means much of anything. There is only one party, The Money Party, and it answers only to the wants and needs of those who have lots of it.
4
Adam Smith was against high economic inequality, for progressive taxation and public education, and regularly spoke negatively of corporations.
Yet the political right proclaim him as one of the main founders of free market capitalism. Perhaps free market capitalism isn't what they think it is. What Adam Smith and many others have understood is that a market can only be free to the extent that all of the people are free.
Also, Adam Smith has been held up as a classical liberal. His criticisms were far from new. Those criticisms were already well established by prior generations. Heck the criticisms of economic inequality go back to Aristotle.
None of this was invented by 20th century progressive liberals.
Yet the political right proclaim him as one of the main founders of free market capitalism. Perhaps free market capitalism isn't what they think it is. What Adam Smith and many others have understood is that a market can only be free to the extent that all of the people are free.
Also, Adam Smith has been held up as a classical liberal. His criticisms were far from new. Those criticisms were already well established by prior generations. Heck the criticisms of economic inequality go back to Aristotle.
None of this was invented by 20th century progressive liberals.
3
To be a liberal means changing with the times. That may be why conservatives can't get a grasp on what liberalism means. As we as a nation progress we've learned more about ourselves and others. And we respond to our current environment so we are not so rigid and regressive in our policies and platforms. Just because it's difficult to label simply enough for low information citizens doesn't mean that our policies are not well thought and responsive. Our leaders seem to lean to the right when they should be leaning to the left which is why we lost the last election. And survey after survey show that liberal policies are popular with people across the spectrum. When they learn that this policy or that platform is "liberal" then they hated it.
2
How is it possible to talk about "contemporary liberalism" when we can't agree on what it means? The same is true of the plethora of other labels that political analysts like to deploy these days. For example, "populism" is applied in many different ways, and the only thing upon which there is apparently a consensus is that it is very, very bad (although Steven Spielberg has been referred to as a "populist filmmaker").
But liberalism used to mean something. In the 1960's, it had at least three central principles:
1. It believed in freedom of speech for everyone.
2. It worked toward eliminating restrictions on personal behavior.
3. It championed the interests of the poor and working people against the rich and powerful.
Today's left is committed to none of these. It insists on "acceptable" behavior and "appropriate" speech, and it promotes the interests of the cultural elite and their adopted minorities. Working class whites (at least the male ones) need not apply.
It would be just as well to retire the term "liberal" to its place in history and to accept the emerging label "progressive" for what the left has become.
But liberalism used to mean something. In the 1960's, it had at least three central principles:
1. It believed in freedom of speech for everyone.
2. It worked toward eliminating restrictions on personal behavior.
3. It championed the interests of the poor and working people against the rich and powerful.
Today's left is committed to none of these. It insists on "acceptable" behavior and "appropriate" speech, and it promotes the interests of the cultural elite and their adopted minorities. Working class whites (at least the male ones) need not apply.
It would be just as well to retire the term "liberal" to its place in history and to accept the emerging label "progressive" for what the left has become.
2
There is something to be said that as women entered politics and political leadership fully in the late 20th century, and typically became liberals, men started to see it as weak rather than as speaking truth against power. Now we seem to default to fascism - that problems are solved with intimidation and rules and symbols rather than public ownership, teamwork and tolerance (in the old sense). American 'small s' socialism (big unions, big taxes, big govt, public health care of the 50s and 60s) isn't losing to capitalism, it's losing to feudalism. Cities with their own rules and 'soft' walls erected against outsiders, rural localities dominated by local billionaires, imperial forts, substance abuse and superstition.
3
Classic liberalism has a strong economic freedom component. See wikipedia definition below.
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. It is closely related to libertarianism and to free market capitalism."
I would LIBERalism to refer to the philosophy with its roots i, LIBERty and freedom. The modern liberal seems to reject classic liberalism's core principal of economic freedom and the free market. When people are not free to decide individually on the minimum wage they will work for, that is not economic freedom. When people are forced to invest in social security, or buy health insurance, that is not economic freedom either. Voluntary charity is econmic frredom, forced wealth redistribution through social welfare. These all may be good things, but as soon as government coercion is involved, I Dont think the word liberty, and by extension, liberalism apply.
Modern liberalism does include liberty such as in deciding whom you marry. However, there are many areas where liberty is replaced with coercion. Whether or not that is good or bad, I would argue those things are not consistent with liberty and the original meaning of liberal which embraced freedom and liberty.
In short, modern liberalism has a strong aspect of trading liberty for security.
John
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. It is closely related to libertarianism and to free market capitalism."
I would LIBERalism to refer to the philosophy with its roots i, LIBERty and freedom. The modern liberal seems to reject classic liberalism's core principal of economic freedom and the free market. When people are not free to decide individually on the minimum wage they will work for, that is not economic freedom. When people are forced to invest in social security, or buy health insurance, that is not economic freedom either. Voluntary charity is econmic frredom, forced wealth redistribution through social welfare. These all may be good things, but as soon as government coercion is involved, I Dont think the word liberty, and by extension, liberalism apply.
Modern liberalism does include liberty such as in deciding whom you marry. However, there are many areas where liberty is replaced with coercion. Whether or not that is good or bad, I would argue those things are not consistent with liberty and the original meaning of liberal which embraced freedom and liberty.
In short, modern liberalism has a strong aspect of trading liberty for security.
John
1
"This is a time when it actually requires a certain courage to declare oneself a liberal, even among presumptively like-minded people. ... A great part of learning the argot of a peer group, which is a great part of claiming and assuming membership in it, is the self-editing that deletes disfavored language. All of us learn this skill in adolescence — learn it so well, perhaps, that we practice it unconsciously through life. This editing reaches deeper than mere language, and of course there is no such thing as mere language. The banishment of the word “liberal” was simultaneous with the collapse of liberalism itself. And however these events were related, the patient smile that precludes conversation on the subject means the matter is closed. To be shamed out of the use of a word is to make a more profound concession to opinion than is consistent with personal integrity. What is at stake? Our hope for a good community. Liberalism saw to the well-being of the vulnerable. Now that it has ebbed, the ranks of the vulnerable continuously swell. If this seems too great a claim to make for it, pick up a newspaper." --Marilynne Robinson, The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought
2
The critique of what passes for liberalism from the left is valid. Liberals for the last 40 years have championed war while disavowing the broadly beneficial economic policies that brought liberalism into prominence in the first place. Both parties have moved to the right to such a degree to serve the oligarch class that neither would be recognizable to the previous generation. This shift has produced rampant inequality, hollowed out the middle class, and made Trump possible. Trump will either be the wake up call for liberalism to return to its egalitarian roots, or the final nail in its coffin. It's up to liberals, classical or otherwise, to decide.
1
Perhaps the reason that the American definition of liberalism is so difficult to grasp is that it has for the past century been synonymous with "Democrat". As we have only two major political parties, those parties are bound to be the very definition of "big-tent party", with a wide range of views fighting for control within. Therefore, what liberalism is has been defined by the politics of those in power in the Democratic Party. That has been at times those who bordered on socialism (FDR) and at others those who embrace corporations and the free market (Clinton). Economic policy is used here because it is easier to define as left or right than cultural.
Note: I do not call myself a liberal.
Note: I do not call myself a liberal.
1
It is interesting that in continental Europe a Liberal stands for a free market economy, limited government intervention, and opposes the relentless push for e er more social services, like a 35 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation per year. The opposit of the traditional meaning in the US.
Liberals do make compromises and are often percieved as being in the middle and afraid to take a stand. Which raises the question: Is the middle, or center, a bad place to be? It seems to me that it's the true believers on either end of the political spectrum who pose the greatest risk to our democracy.
2
Liberalism didn’t change that much. 20th century liberalism was a direct continuation of ideas and policies first formulated and advocated centuries earlier.
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights was inspired by Thomas Paine. The critique of big biz and corporatism goes back to a central reason the American Revolution was fought, as the founders were mistrustful of the corporatist collusion between big gov and big biz. That was what the whole tax issue was about, as big biz was being given preferential treatment by big gov.
Many of the founders didn’t just want to bust up monopolies but to create laws that would prevent them from forming. That is why they put severe restrictions on corporate charters. That remained the predominant US political position until the 20th century neoliberal corporatists gained power.
As for legalizing unions, the fight about organized labor goes back to the ending of feudalism, the enclosure movement that stole and privatized the commons, and the attack on the rights of commoners (what later would be referred to as the rights of Englishmen). Thomas Paine witnessed organized labor and the early labor union movement in London, before coming to the colonies.
The only reason the US government had to legalize unions in the 20th century was because corporations had gained power to essentially make them illegal prior to that. Legalizing them was removing interventionist government in its suppression of organized labor in the defense of big biz.
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights was inspired by Thomas Paine. The critique of big biz and corporatism goes back to a central reason the American Revolution was fought, as the founders were mistrustful of the corporatist collusion between big gov and big biz. That was what the whole tax issue was about, as big biz was being given preferential treatment by big gov.
Many of the founders didn’t just want to bust up monopolies but to create laws that would prevent them from forming. That is why they put severe restrictions on corporate charters. That remained the predominant US political position until the 20th century neoliberal corporatists gained power.
As for legalizing unions, the fight about organized labor goes back to the ending of feudalism, the enclosure movement that stole and privatized the commons, and the attack on the rights of commoners (what later would be referred to as the rights of Englishmen). Thomas Paine witnessed organized labor and the early labor union movement in London, before coming to the colonies.
The only reason the US government had to legalize unions in the 20th century was because corporations had gained power to essentially make them illegal prior to that. Legalizing them was removing interventionist government in its suppression of organized labor in the defense of big biz.
I wish we had less historical amnesia.
Many classical liberals from past centuries, including among the American revolutionaries and founders, were radical left-wingers. They criticized Christianity, theocracy, monarchy, plutocracy, authoritarianism, centralized government, concentrated wealth and power, corporatism, big biz, etc. They did this while often advocating for democratic process, social democracy, universal suffrage, women’s rights, black rights, abolition of slavery, basic income/citizen’s dividend, progressive taxation, public schools, separation of church and state, separation of business and state, etc.
Not every classical liberal agreed with all or necessarily even any of those exact positions. And it is fair to point out that some classical liberals were what today we would call reactionary conservatives, as opposed to traditionalists defending the ancien regime. But among classical liberals, this represented the leftward range of ideas and values under discussion. Classical liberalism meant many things to many people, ever since the beginning of the Enlightenment Age. It always had immense diversity and inconsistency.
Why can’t we begin discussions like this with a basic acknowledgment of historical facts?
Many classical liberals from past centuries, including among the American revolutionaries and founders, were radical left-wingers. They criticized Christianity, theocracy, monarchy, plutocracy, authoritarianism, centralized government, concentrated wealth and power, corporatism, big biz, etc. They did this while often advocating for democratic process, social democracy, universal suffrage, women’s rights, black rights, abolition of slavery, basic income/citizen’s dividend, progressive taxation, public schools, separation of church and state, separation of business and state, etc.
Not every classical liberal agreed with all or necessarily even any of those exact positions. And it is fair to point out that some classical liberals were what today we would call reactionary conservatives, as opposed to traditionalists defending the ancien regime. But among classical liberals, this represented the leftward range of ideas and values under discussion. Classical liberalism meant many things to many people, ever since the beginning of the Enlightenment Age. It always had immense diversity and inconsistency.
Why can’t we begin discussions like this with a basic acknowledgment of historical facts?
2
I'm a post-war conservative. That means I believe in well-established ideas like Wyatt Erp (as opposed to the gun totin' cowboys), equal rights, unions, progressive income tax, regulated capitalism, social security, medicare, medicaid, and if I must choose between "the railroads running the government," or the opposite, I choose the latter.
1
The phenomenon described in this article is what has allowed the last 40 years to be dominated by Conservative rule. The Right finds creative ways to bash the Left, and both the Right and the Left, especially newcomers who recognize imperfection over positive accomplishment, become a chorus of anti-Left acrimony.
Circular firing squads are nothing new on the Left, which works in harmony with the Conservative approach of divide and conquer.
Circular firing squads are nothing new on the Left, which works in harmony with the Conservative approach of divide and conquer.
1
I don't know who came up with the definition: "The liberal is pious about diversity but ready to abandon any belief at the slightest drop in poll numbers — a person who is, as the folk singer Phil Ochs once said, ‘‘10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.’’ IMO, this is totally off the mark. This is more in line with what I've seen in Conservatives. What is referred to as the "European version" is more accurate: "a preference for things like limited government, separate private and public spheres, freedom of the press and association, free trade and open markets (classical liberalism)’’.
1
The classic example of this hypocrisy is the many Democratic politicians who send their own children to elite private schools such as Sidwell Friends in DC. Public education for thee - but not for me.
Donald Trump's followers now label anyone espousing traditional American values as "liberals," as if those values--once thought to be part of the American psyche--are now nothing more than a political ideology rooted somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum. Those values include free elections, the courage to stand up to tyranny, equality for all citizens under the law, respect for the separation of powers, the equality of all three branches of government, and respect for the United States Constitution with the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press, Americans have fought and died for those values, and the American flag is their symbol. His supporters are trading those values for the pie-in-the-sky materialism promised by Trump, along with a self-defeating “America first” outlook and a return to some mythical time of past prosperity and greatness.
2
@Carl Walter: The "past prosperity and greatness" of the United States of America is no "myth." It was, and remains the greatest nation ever formed on this planet. And if you don't believe that, look at past human history, and then look around you. There is no "myth" in reality.
1
I'd gladly accept all the liberal critics if only they would give up their government assisted housing in the form of mortgage interest deduction. Otherwise they act like comrades, not conservatives.
2
It's clear from the comments on this article that self identifying liberals have a very different understanding of the term "liberal" than do anti-liberals (whether as conservatives, progressives, or otherwise).
1
I'm a liberal, but one that realizes that the label is now a negative--and likely to remain one for many years to come. We have allowed this to happen by not defending our positions--or even offering fixed positions on anything. We will strengthen the safety net and pay for it by taxing the rich. We will provide improved education by taxing the rich. Provide affordable housing by taxing the rich.
You get the idea. We will do wondrous things without costing the poor or middle class a dime. It is no wonder no one takes us seriously anymore. We need to tell the public that fiscally some desired programs are not feasible. And that although we strongly support immigration, there must be some control of our borders and there need to be some consequences. We need to tell folks that although we support a separation of church and state, we will not automatically oppose anything religious.
We need to offer reasonable policies----supportive of common folks and the working class, but not weak and impossible to fund. Can we do this?
You get the idea. We will do wondrous things without costing the poor or middle class a dime. It is no wonder no one takes us seriously anymore. We need to tell the public that fiscally some desired programs are not feasible. And that although we strongly support immigration, there must be some control of our borders and there need to be some consequences. We need to tell folks that although we support a separation of church and state, we will not automatically oppose anything religious.
We need to offer reasonable policies----supportive of common folks and the working class, but not weak and impossible to fund. Can we do this?
2
You're conflating "liberalism" (in the American tradition, a combination of classical economic liberalism with a robust Keynesian vision for state intervention to combat inequality, or what we think of now as social democracy) with "neoliberalism", a term that surprisingly does not appear in your piece. Neoliberalism is corporate capitalism, and describes the trend on the Left (brought to the fore under Clinton) to tack right on business and finance and embrace aspects of the properly conservative agenda (fiscal austerity, deregulation, etc). It is liberalism stripped of its egalitarian ethos, and narrowly returned to an individualistic vision of capitalism that even Adam Smith wouldn't recognize.
We rightly critique neoliberalism, both its conservative champions (its intellectual antecedents include Hayek and Friedman) and its "liberal" followers (Clinton most prominently, but even Obama as this article rightly notes). What is needed is not a return to Keynesian liberalism (that day has passed) but a bolder agenda to replace the failed ideology of neoliberalism. You can't find defenders on the Left because we recognize that it's failed. But we have yet to articulate a coherent ideology to replace it: one that acknowledges what liberalism (and social democracy) got right but updates that narrative to the challenges of the 21st century.
We rightly critique neoliberalism, both its conservative champions (its intellectual antecedents include Hayek and Friedman) and its "liberal" followers (Clinton most prominently, but even Obama as this article rightly notes). What is needed is not a return to Keynesian liberalism (that day has passed) but a bolder agenda to replace the failed ideology of neoliberalism. You can't find defenders on the Left because we recognize that it's failed. But we have yet to articulate a coherent ideology to replace it: one that acknowledges what liberalism (and social democracy) got right but updates that narrative to the challenges of the 21st century.
2
Today's America: "Liberals" are not liberal, and "Conservatives" are not conservative.
IMO, the early 20th progressives did a lot of damage merging big business, intellectual academics, and the state. Everyday people, regardless of political views, generally don't like that.
IMO, the early 20th progressives did a lot of damage merging big business, intellectual academics, and the state. Everyday people, regardless of political views, generally don't like that.
One thing is certain after reading this article and the comments. Right wing propaganda from the 1880s so tarnished and confused people about liberalism (and conservatism for that matter) that these words no longer have any consistency of meaning. We are lost in a sea of partisan tribalism, with the Right hating the Left and the Left hating parts of the Left and the Right, but no one discussing actual policy or how to get things done or make things better. Name calling and demonising have replaced discourse and compromise. .
2
Anyone who accepts the modern American definition of liberalism is a fool unworthy of attention. Belief in liberty has been perverted into belief in government. While in graduate school studying French Liberalism, I roomed with a Turkish sociologist who opposed G.W. Bush because he was "too liberal." I always start with that comment when I teach US political history and enjoy the consternation it creates among my students.
6
My impression is that modern liberalism is like classic liberalism with much of the liberty taken out. Modern liberalism trades liberty for promised security. This is especially true of economic liberty. (see below).
Economic liberty is a potential employee deciding on the lowest wage they will work for, not the government. Economic liberty is deciding what, if any health insurance you will buy, and not being forced to buy what the government tells you too. Economic liberty is having whatever retirement savings plan you like, and not being forced to participate in social security.
How could a liberal who truly believes in individual liberty accept any of the above? They can't, and as you pointed out many liberals believe in government coercion especially in economic matters, which is the opposite of root of liberal, liber (free).
Whether or not one things such coercion is a good thing, the word liberal should not be used to describe a philosophy that is based so heavily on such coercion. It should be used to describe beliefs based on freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. It is closely related to libertarianism and to free market capitalism.[1][2]"
Economic liberty is a potential employee deciding on the lowest wage they will work for, not the government. Economic liberty is deciding what, if any health insurance you will buy, and not being forced to buy what the government tells you too. Economic liberty is having whatever retirement savings plan you like, and not being forced to participate in social security.
How could a liberal who truly believes in individual liberty accept any of the above? They can't, and as you pointed out many liberals believe in government coercion especially in economic matters, which is the opposite of root of liberal, liber (free).
Whether or not one things such coercion is a good thing, the word liberal should not be used to describe a philosophy that is based so heavily on such coercion. It should be used to describe beliefs based on freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. It is closely related to libertarianism and to free market capitalism.[1][2]"
1
Liberty does not mean government stepping back and allowing oppression to happen.
2
"Liberty does not mean government stepping back and allowing oppression to happen."
From https://www.google.com/#q=liberty
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
"compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty""
There are many definitions. The test in this one is oppressive restrictions imposed by authority.
I think you can have liberty and material poverty. I don't think we should stand by and let people starve or die in the street either. Much of peoples material state comes from their decisions. Decisions to drop out of high school, have children as a single parent with no means to support them, choosing not to buy insurance.
There is the trade off between liberty and security. I believe in a great deal of liberty and a great deal of accountability for your own decisions made with that liberty.
That may mean if you choose not to buy health insurance, and get cancer when you are 35, you may have to sell your house to pay for your treatment, and incur future debt.
John
From https://www.google.com/#q=liberty
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
"compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty""
There are many definitions. The test in this one is oppressive restrictions imposed by authority.
I think you can have liberty and material poverty. I don't think we should stand by and let people starve or die in the street either. Much of peoples material state comes from their decisions. Decisions to drop out of high school, have children as a single parent with no means to support them, choosing not to buy insurance.
There is the trade off between liberty and security. I believe in a great deal of liberty and a great deal of accountability for your own decisions made with that liberty.
That may mean if you choose not to buy health insurance, and get cancer when you are 35, you may have to sell your house to pay for your treatment, and incur future debt.
John
As a native New Yorker being labelled a Liberal is not something to be embarrassed by or, for that matter, unusual. It is rarer not to be. It is why conservatives decry metropolises like ours in Blue States. We represent to them people who hate American. Nothing could be further from the truth, but don't try to explain that those steeped in Right Wing propaganda.
We Liberals are labelled unpatriotic, un-American because we choose to criticize US when we err. What is so unpatriotic about that I never got. To criticize is to care, to want to correct, to do as the Founders hoped, to form that more perfect Union. Since no one is perfect why not at least strive to perfect what we can through our endeavors, to improve upon the foundation laid down some 241 years ago. What's so wrong with that?
DD
Manhattan
We Liberals are labelled unpatriotic, un-American because we choose to criticize US when we err. What is so unpatriotic about that I never got. To criticize is to care, to want to correct, to do as the Founders hoped, to form that more perfect Union. Since no one is perfect why not at least strive to perfect what we can through our endeavors, to improve upon the foundation laid down some 241 years ago. What's so wrong with that?
DD
Manhattan
53
It's in fact conservatives who hate America, since they insist that the liberal majority are not "real Americans." That's why they see nothing wrong with their voter suppression campaign. They don't think the voters who are suppressed are really American. They think only white conservatives are "real Americans."
4
Labels and name tags are for the intellectually lazy. What's important are specific philosophical, political, and policy positions (e.g., gun control, abortion, taxes, healthcare, military spending, environmental protection, job growth, etc). Simple labels tend to obscure and confuse voters as to what politicians specifically believe and support.
7
John F. Kennedy said very well why he was proud to be a liberal .... perhaps you may want to revisit what he thought of the "Liberal" label ...
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
1
I'm pleased with being a liberal. I don't care what others think. I vote liberal - not extremist.
29
Yes OK, but the point is, being a 'liberal' is no longer what it used to be. It is now firmly associated with imperialism, war, and putting corporate interests before people. 'Liberal' has gradually come to mean the liberation of corporations and finance more than the Liberty and freedom of people.
No, Bobo C, not at all. You have simply accepted the stilted argument put forth for such a new, hateful definition. Those who are liberal, will not accept that new definition, because we will not support such things, even on our worst day. Above all, liberals are for the little guy.
1
Great illustration!
2
Being considerate of others, offering equal opportunity to all based on achievement without prejudice is not identity politics it is being moral, just and kind. The hateful rhetoric from the right wants to glorify rudeness, vulgarity and violence. The same thing was done with the word feminist. It is all a propaganda game to gain power and back people down for standing up for what is right. Their mistake will be confusing kindness and integrity with weakness. "Pride goeth before a fall."
14
Well thought out comment, except the part where you think liberals are identified as standing for equal opportunity based on achievement. It’s the opposite of the identity politics left and espouses exactly what conservatives have stood for for decades.
I have always called myself liberal without shame. Today, though, the sands feel like they've shifted underneath me and what it means to be liberal may have changed. If the term has come to identify the "Bernie or death" faction emerging at the fringe, then count me out. One thing I can definitely identify as is anti-extremist.
9
The best way for liberals to get in touch with their roots, to get a sense of clarity and purpose, is to read "Homegrown Democrat," by Garrison Keillor. Better yet, get the audio version. Also read FDR's "second bill of rights." At its core, the modern liberal believes that we need big government for protection against exploitation and to provide a safety net. Liberals who are too far to the left are not liberals, but radicals.
15
You cite FDR as a role model, but deride those who would fight to enact his vision radicals?
2
As the arc of recent history has demonstrated, America does better when a broad safety net is provided.
I don't see the value, economic or otherwise, in the growing concentration of wealth in just a few hands and the accompanying anger and alienation.
I don't see the value, economic or otherwise, in the growing concentration of wealth in just a few hands and the accompanying anger and alienation.
2
"Liberals" need to spend some time and study FDR. He was a popular President for many years. How did he do it?
He found a way to connect with ALL segments of the population; he was perceived as a proponent for EVERYONE.
Study his speeches, his actions. Then you'll have a pretty good idea of what works for a "liberal".
He found a way to connect with ALL segments of the population; he was perceived as a proponent for EVERYONE.
Study his speeches, his actions. Then you'll have a pretty good idea of what works for a "liberal".
10
True enough. Ditto Harry Truman, especially HST.
Except for one in the FDR punch bowl. To get his programs through Congress he caved far too many times to the Southern Democrats where race was concerned. One example: To get the nation's first minimum wage passed, he agreed to exempt farm workers and domestics their fair share.
I'll take it that latter day Roosevelt-Truman to indeed include everyone below the elite top and "give 'em he'll" early and often.
Except for one in the FDR punch bowl. To get his programs through Congress he caved far too many times to the Southern Democrats where race was concerned. One example: To get the nation's first minimum wage passed, he agreed to exempt farm workers and domestics their fair share.
I'll take it that latter day Roosevelt-Truman to indeed include everyone below the elite top and "give 'em he'll" early and often.
1
How did he do it? He married Eleanor.
2
I have been a liberal as long as I remember. I am an adult and will die with these values; liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, civil rights, gender equality, freedom of religion, secular government! I am proud to be a liberal!
42
I too am a proud liberal, but hasten to agree with those readers who have distinguished the terms "liberal" and "left." At the core of its meaning, a liberal mind is an open mind. JS Mill laid this out brilliantly in On Liberty, but Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell captured it in a paragraph.
As Russell wrote, what marks a liberal is not what he believes but how be believes it. Tentatively, like a scientist, a liberal believes that for which he has the best evidence, but he's always willing to be talked out of his views. This is because he is not attached to his present views so much as to getting at the truth of the moral, legal, and political issues that concern us in all its complexity. Unlike those on the rigid, intolerant right and the rigid, intolerant left, thus, a true liberal not only tolerates those who disagree with him and can give reasons for their views. He welcomes them, even seeks them out, so that he may come to know his own views on public matters more accurately.
To be sure, there are practical limits: I'm not going to waste my time with someone who says "sit down, let me show you why Hitler was a great man." Yet most of the public issues we face going forward are more contestable than this. In any case, Socrates may have been the ultimate liberal. He knew that he didn't know, and so admitted that fact up front in seeking to learn from those who claimed to know. This gave him a freedom that most do not have, but it also eventually got him put to death.
As Russell wrote, what marks a liberal is not what he believes but how be believes it. Tentatively, like a scientist, a liberal believes that for which he has the best evidence, but he's always willing to be talked out of his views. This is because he is not attached to his present views so much as to getting at the truth of the moral, legal, and political issues that concern us in all its complexity. Unlike those on the rigid, intolerant right and the rigid, intolerant left, thus, a true liberal not only tolerates those who disagree with him and can give reasons for their views. He welcomes them, even seeks them out, so that he may come to know his own views on public matters more accurately.
To be sure, there are practical limits: I'm not going to waste my time with someone who says "sit down, let me show you why Hitler was a great man." Yet most of the public issues we face going forward are more contestable than this. In any case, Socrates may have been the ultimate liberal. He knew that he didn't know, and so admitted that fact up front in seeking to learn from those who claimed to know. This gave him a freedom that most do not have, but it also eventually got him put to death.
26
Based on everything I've read so far it would seem that everyone is liberal on some things and conservative on everything else. So , lets stop usingthe words liberal and conservative.
I classify myself as a progressive, not a liberal and from what I've read the "conservatives" would be classified as regressives. Far better descriptors because the conservatives don't conserve anything and the liberals don't seem to know what they are. It's like he term "right to work" a colossal misnomer, it really means that you can be fired without cause. Something the republicans love and the Democrats not so much.
So there you have it, progressives go forward and regressives want to go back, at least to the 1920's.
I classify myself as a progressive, not a liberal and from what I've read the "conservatives" would be classified as regressives. Far better descriptors because the conservatives don't conserve anything and the liberals don't seem to know what they are. It's like he term "right to work" a colossal misnomer, it really means that you can be fired without cause. Something the republicans love and the Democrats not so much.
So there you have it, progressives go forward and regressives want to go back, at least to the 1920's.
2
This is nothing new. From Phil Ochs to Carl Oglesby, "the left" has been trolling liberals for decades.
If you can't stomach "liberals," perhaps the current zeitgeist is more to your taste.
If you can't stomach "liberals," perhaps the current zeitgeist is more to your taste.
3
The research in the wake of the 2016 election proved one thing: the division is not actually "liberal" or "conservative/right wing" but education.
I do have concerns that these terms, especially "liberal," are being weaponized and used to draw tribal boundaries, however. One thing we can all do is stop mocking/labeling each other and instead get down to specifics: What are your concerns about Issue X? What are your views on Issue Y? Hey, we actually agree on something!
I do have concerns that these terms, especially "liberal," are being weaponized and used to draw tribal boundaries, however. One thing we can all do is stop mocking/labeling each other and instead get down to specifics: What are your concerns about Issue X? What are your views on Issue Y? Hey, we actually agree on something!
2
Liberals care about others. Liberals care about ALL Americans and ALL human beings. If that's a "bad" thing count me in.
Of course, some people go too far. That is what we are witnessing and living with the Koch brothers engineered takeover of OUR governments around the world, at all levels, by radical right-wingers - the International Mafia. We do not want to go too far left as Bernie Sanders and his supporters want.
The Koch brothers world is one of destruction and war fueled by hate/anger/fear propaganda. That is not the kind of world the vast majority of human beings want. Nor do we want to create a full-dependency welfare state. The vast majority of us want something in the center, without wild swings either way and that is why nearly 40% of us remain independent of "party". WE hold the key to centering America.
Liberal/progressive means having a social conscience and believing in and working for social/economic justice for all. It's a wonderful thing.
Of course, some people go too far. That is what we are witnessing and living with the Koch brothers engineered takeover of OUR governments around the world, at all levels, by radical right-wingers - the International Mafia. We do not want to go too far left as Bernie Sanders and his supporters want.
The Koch brothers world is one of destruction and war fueled by hate/anger/fear propaganda. That is not the kind of world the vast majority of human beings want. Nor do we want to create a full-dependency welfare state. The vast majority of us want something in the center, without wild swings either way and that is why nearly 40% of us remain independent of "party". WE hold the key to centering America.
Liberal/progressive means having a social conscience and believing in and working for social/economic justice for all. It's a wonderful thing.
13
Bernie isn't far-left, though... His policy platform when running for President was social-democratic, and he's even dropped pushing for some of those positions since. Social democracy is a moderate center-left on the international spectrum. It's the Washington spectrum that's skewed to the right.
2
Bernie isn't so far to the left, it's that the center has been moved to the right. Compare Bernie's policies to FDR. Not too much different.
2
Being a classical liberal and being a progressive are closer to being opposites. The article is trying to educate you on the subject but it doesn't appear to have made an impact. Your stated definitions are in no way accurate and are a regurgitation of the speech that has been used to divide us.
Saying 'Liberals care about others' misses the most important part of Liberalism and implies that Liberals are the only ones who care about others. Divisive.
Being a liberal means caring about the FREEDOM of oneself and others. This includes the freedom of self-determination for all. Even if you may not agree with their choices and think you know better.
Calling yourself Liberal/progressive is what has smeared the term 'liberal.'
Its just as ridiculous and giving directions that say "take a left/right on Main St, then go up/down a hill and over/under a bridge. Then turn onto the road before/after the sign.
This article is about you.
Saying 'Liberals care about others' misses the most important part of Liberalism and implies that Liberals are the only ones who care about others. Divisive.
Being a liberal means caring about the FREEDOM of oneself and others. This includes the freedom of self-determination for all. Even if you may not agree with their choices and think you know better.
Calling yourself Liberal/progressive is what has smeared the term 'liberal.'
Its just as ridiculous and giving directions that say "take a left/right on Main St, then go up/down a hill and over/under a bridge. Then turn onto the road before/after the sign.
This article is about you.
1
The definition of liberal democracy is a form of representative government based on a constitution or set of laws, fair and free elections, separation of powers, respect for a free press, transparency, etc. The form of government desired by Trump would be referred to as "illiberal", like that of Russia. Hence, the conservative party in Canada is called the Liberal Party.
A better way to distinguish Democrats from Republicans is as progressives vs conservatives.
In the US, "liberal" has oddly become an epithet, evidence of our deeply irrational partisanship.
A better way to distinguish Democrats from Republicans is as progressives vs conservatives.
In the US, "liberal" has oddly become an epithet, evidence of our deeply irrational partisanship.
6
An old friend of mine, who is a major Trump supporter, had taken to starting sentences with, "you liberals," and proceeding to lambast liberals and me for everything under the sun. Although I never broached politics with her and tried to keep our increasingly strained relationship intact for old times sake , this became a pattern. One day I stopped her and asked her to define what she meant by liberal - she couldn't. My response: if believing in the rule of law, the Constitution, civil and human rights, and operating under the principle of "doing to others as you would have them do to you" makes me a liberal, I am, indeed, a liberal. We don't see each other much anymore, but the venom has stopped when we do.
197
I've had similar experiences. It's tiring to always probe more deeply and get a blank response.
Because humans are clannish, everyone wants to belong and then we get this kind of tribal behavior. We're not better than other countries we look down on...we must be more thoughtful about our beliefs.
Because humans are clannish, everyone wants to belong and then we get this kind of tribal behavior. We're not better than other countries we look down on...we must be more thoughtful about our beliefs.
3
Trump believes in the rule of law. Especially immigration law. None of the big parties seems to believe in it anymore. they seem to disrespect and spit on our laws. That is why Trump was elected. Glad that you support the second amendment though.
Liberal = Enlightenment, Age of Reason
Few things bother me more than the ignorance ''educated'' people demonstrate about where our government comes from and how it works.
Anti-liberal (conservative? reactionary? just greedy?) forces demean and diminish public education, including science, history and civics. Many Americans amble about with just a vague understanding of our history, the founding, our great struggles. NPR tweets out the Declaration on July 4th and is accused of radical agitation.
Our great leaders understood that all must be educated, informed and engaged if our liberal experiment in democracy is to survive. They could take a punch and accept it as part of our great dialogue.
We are all in this together and will reason it out together. Or we won't.
Few things bother me more than the ignorance ''educated'' people demonstrate about where our government comes from and how it works.
Anti-liberal (conservative? reactionary? just greedy?) forces demean and diminish public education, including science, history and civics. Many Americans amble about with just a vague understanding of our history, the founding, our great struggles. NPR tweets out the Declaration on July 4th and is accused of radical agitation.
Our great leaders understood that all must be educated, informed and engaged if our liberal experiment in democracy is to survive. They could take a punch and accept it as part of our great dialogue.
We are all in this together and will reason it out together. Or we won't.
91
Very well put
1
I prefer Robert Frost's definition, " A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." When I was a young liberal in College I don't remember the vitriol against all things republican I see to today. There seems to be a lot of Freudian projection of hatred on the left these days. Obama was a terrible president for me and I went backwards economically because of the terrible ACA, which could only be passed as a TAX law. NO wonder it stinks and is costly. However, I never hated Obama, I just didn't agree on policy. Can't tell you how many times someone on the left declared my opinion as closeted racism or hyper partisan or some other nonsense. My Cancer surviving MOM had her insurance cancelled( she is okay now) and I was told several times by liberals that I was lying about it because I hated Obama. What happened liberals? You used to be nice people!
55
Most liberals are pussycats compared to commenters on say, Breitbart, and better versed on policy. The Trump phenomenon has pushed some people too far. Maybe it's not all things Republican, but all the things Republicans are trying to do that bother good liberals.
5
Could you please explain how you went "backwards" financially because of the ACA and why your mom had her insurance "cancelled?" Both claims have a ring of hollowness.
3
The right-wing invented polarization and hatred.
2
I grew up a Jewish kid in an Italian Catholic neighborhood and all my friends had God up on the wall. We didn't, but we had a picture of a man with deep eyes and I stared at that picture and decided that that must be God. Now, sixty years later, I still believe that Franklin Roosevelt was God. That makes me a Liberal and proud of it.
235
I'm a Jewish kid who grew up in an Italian Catholic neighborhood too! Likewise they kept one of their interpretations of G-d up on their walls too! More importantly for most they treated me with honor and respect, as I would expect G-d would want! I conducted myself as G-d through Micah asked: And what does the Lord ask of the; To Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly...We all with our different interpretations got along quite well...We didn't need FDR to realize that...Liberal or not...G-d Bless America, our home sweet home.
1
From the online etymology dictionary...
Liberal (noun)..."from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."
Liberal (noun)..."from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."
5
Many terms have various senses, and usually few apply in a given context. True of the political liberal.
Liberals want certain checks on access to guns.
Conservatives launched an unimpeded, unbridled and unchecked, but also unprovoked, invasion of Iraq.
Liberals want certain checks on access to guns.
Conservatives launched an unimpeded, unbridled and unchecked, but also unprovoked, invasion of Iraq.
1
in my country Australia, the current government Liberal Party is more right wing than the leftie Labor Party - and has been associated with neo-Liberal privatisation agendas - lower taxes by reduced government spending by giving major infrastructure projects to (friends') private companies - how do you like those tri-state tollways brought to you by Australian Toll Holdings or Macquarie (I forget which) ? I heard they were very unpopular.
Now with repeated failure of those privatised major projects falling back to big debts on public taxpayers - suddenly the neo-liberal privatise-everything agenda is (cough) quietly disappearing - to be replaced by - yes government should take on debt as a responsible lower cost borrower - to build and maintain necessary infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Now with repeated failure of those privatised major projects falling back to big debts on public taxpayers - suddenly the neo-liberal privatise-everything agenda is (cough) quietly disappearing - to be replaced by - yes government should take on debt as a responsible lower cost borrower - to build and maintain necessary infrastructure like roads and bridges.
1
Obviously not the folks I want spending my money.
LIberalism gets bashed, in part, because of its past successes. Sure, we need to take a long hard look at how it can serve all the people, but lets not throw away the baby with the bath water. I still don't see an attractive alternative.
22
How about social democracy, aka. soft capitalism?
2
Yes, i think that is what I am, Milad, but can you please define it more specifically?
Dave Kliman, you probably know my Brother in Law Mack?.......I continue to believe, "Liberal" means one thing.........Generous.........with other people's money!!!!!
14
Yes, we are some guilty of being "big spenders" while simultaneously somehow abandoning our New Deal and Great Society heritage. Apparently, people across the political spectrum expect something for nothing from us.
We ought to consider the possibility that the arrogance the liberals are perceived to affect is the product of the frustration that others feel when their own ideas and ideals are exposed as fallacious and wishful thinking. Ours is the Era of Guano in which liberalism is made to be the piñata for those who are sure we won't hit back. So much easier (and safer) than going after the root causes suffering and economic failure.
We ought to consider the possibility that the arrogance the liberals are perceived to affect is the product of the frustration that others feel when their own ideas and ideals are exposed as fallacious and wishful thinking. Ours is the Era of Guano in which liberalism is made to be the piñata for those who are sure we won't hit back. So much easier (and safer) than going after the root causes suffering and economic failure.
18
This article is should be a starting point for anyone interested in history or freedom, but it tries to tell a confusing story and omits the most crucial thing about an actual "liberal." There is an excellent book out called "For a new Liberty" that will walk people through this devolution.
The closest thing we have to a 'classical liberal' or 'real liberal' today is a libertarian. And Libertarians had to choose this name because everyone was misusing the term liberal. I find it very odd that the writer chose this significant omission.
Communists and socialists of the early 20th century did a phenomenal marketing job in somehow pitching their ideas a liberal. Basically, they said that only way to achieve freedom from monarchies is to give power to a different type of government that would stand up for your 'freedoms.' I ask you now to reflect on how that has turned out (Stalin, Hitler, etc).
I've always found it funny that 'Progressives' and 'liberals' could ever be united under a single political party in the US as they are fundamentally opposed. 'Progressism' is in fact just another form of statism touted by socialists and communists that was a bit more palatable to Americans.
'Liberals' have a terrible reputation these days, because unprincipled and illogical people have been wrongly selling their ideasemselves liberals for the last hundred years.
Liberalism is truly at the foundation of American Politics and this is a correction that needs to be made.
The closest thing we have to a 'classical liberal' or 'real liberal' today is a libertarian. And Libertarians had to choose this name because everyone was misusing the term liberal. I find it very odd that the writer chose this significant omission.
Communists and socialists of the early 20th century did a phenomenal marketing job in somehow pitching their ideas a liberal. Basically, they said that only way to achieve freedom from monarchies is to give power to a different type of government that would stand up for your 'freedoms.' I ask you now to reflect on how that has turned out (Stalin, Hitler, etc).
I've always found it funny that 'Progressives' and 'liberals' could ever be united under a single political party in the US as they are fundamentally opposed. 'Progressism' is in fact just another form of statism touted by socialists and communists that was a bit more palatable to Americans.
'Liberals' have a terrible reputation these days, because unprincipled and illogical people have been wrongly selling their ideasemselves liberals for the last hundred years.
Liberalism is truly at the foundation of American Politics and this is a correction that needs to be made.
19
I believe Milton Friedman considered himself close to a liberatarian / classic liberal. He, with his wife wrote the book "Free to Choose" which shows how programs that move spending and decisions to a central government can and often do have unintended negative conseqences. How the market as a whole working as a system has knowledge that no one person or beauracracy can ever had. If disciplined centralized planning and redistribution of wealth worked, the defunct U. S. S. R. would have been a great success. Instead it failed.
Freedom provides for wealth distribution. One form is called charity. With charity, the receiver is less likely to be damaged by the benefit. A parent, taking care of an impoverished adult single mother may have lifestyle expectations. A parent might take them in and NOT provide cash that could get spent on drugs. A parent might discourage a lifestyle of having child after child the single mother can not support.
Justice Clarence Thomas had the good fortune of being raised by his gradparents rather than his impoverished mother. His grand parents ended up raising a judge.
Freedom provides for wealth distribution. One form is called charity. With charity, the receiver is less likely to be damaged by the benefit. A parent, taking care of an impoverished adult single mother may have lifestyle expectations. A parent might take them in and NOT provide cash that could get spent on drugs. A parent might discourage a lifestyle of having child after child the single mother can not support.
Justice Clarence Thomas had the good fortune of being raised by his gradparents rather than his impoverished mother. His grand parents ended up raising a judge.
The profane manipulation of the photograph of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a wealthy New Yorker who gave his life in the service of his country, illustrating an article that addresses, in part, another New Yorker who has most certainly not served his country with such honor, devotion, and dignity, is disgusting. Derek Brahney should be ashamed.
34
Laughable, and typical of the comments I routinely see on this forum.
Has Donald Trump so much as attempted to:
1. Round-up people of a particular race, based on race alone, and put them in concentration camps; US citizens included?
2. Create a House committee based on ferreting-out "Un-American Acts" or political affiliations?
3. Used the IRS as a political weapon?
Has Donald Trump so much as attempted to:
1. Round-up people of a particular race, based on race alone, and put them in concentration camps; US citizens included?
2. Create a House committee based on ferreting-out "Un-American Acts" or political affiliations?
3. Used the IRS as a political weapon?
How could you not be the One to provide the most insightful biting comment, thank you… And you even got one in on old 45 at the same time!
Liberal = Left
There is no difference anymore. Any politician knows they must
tow the leftist line or they will be outcast. Money dries up and
attack ads ran against them. Liberal = Left.
There is no difference anymore. Any politician knows they must
tow the leftist line or they will be outcast. Money dries up and
attack ads ran against them. Liberal = Left.
5
Great op-ed. I agree with word of it. I am so glad that I don't embrace any of their values any more. I came to my senses in 2000 when Gore started dong the Macarena and pay Naomi Wolfe a fortune to advise him on earth-tone shirts. That's when I realized the liberals were flakes. The last 8 years confirmed that realization and HRC brought it to a new level of absurdity if not insidious.
18
Anyone who calls themselves a "southern boy" and gripes about the last 8 years wasn't ever a liberal.
6
"Liberal: Characterized by policies favoring progress or reform; not intolerant or prejudiced, broad-minded; characterized by generosity..."
From reading this column, one would have NO idea of the true definition of 'liberal,' as given above. I guess that's what happens when a term becomes a punching bag, devoid of all meaning, vilified by its detractors to the point of no meaning at all.
A formerly proud word, plundered and raped, left for dead - just like the USA.
From reading this column, one would have NO idea of the true definition of 'liberal,' as given above. I guess that's what happens when a term becomes a punching bag, devoid of all meaning, vilified by its detractors to the point of no meaning at all.
A formerly proud word, plundered and raped, left for dead - just like the USA.
67
It's so easy when liberals write their own definitions for the word "liberal" isn't it? Just like the liberal socialists in America who always reply, "But I'm a "democratic socialist!" trying to somehow claim a mantle other than "socialist"..... until you go to the "democratic socialists" website where they openly wish Karl Marx a "Happy Birthday!" with a huge banner across the page and try to convince each other that it really is finally time to drop the word "democratic" and come out of the closet as what they truly are .... simply "socialists".
1
A year or so ago a conservative friend posted some nonsense on Facebook about liberals supporting "safe spaces" in colleges. I wrote back "I'm a liberal and I think that whole movement is nuts. You go to College to expand your horizons not stay within your comfort zone"
My friend wrote back "You're not a liberal.
"Of course I am" I replied listing my liberal bona fades. Antiwar, pro-environment, in favor of progressive taxation, single payer health care system, pro-choice, and of course, pro freedom of speech.
As it turned out she may have been right. A few weeks later I posted the same opinion on a liberal bulletin board thread on a site that I had long been a member of and was promptly and viciously attacked as a racisist, a sexist and a hater of trans, gay and bisexual people.
Since the Clinton administration Democrats have been decoupling themselves from the liberal economic legacy of FDR and in its place assembled a coalition of interest groups many of which have very little in common with each other. Maybe that's where the nastiness, insularity, the preciousness, the insane notion that nothing can be questioned for to do so feeds the right wing agenda comes from.
These days I'm no longer calling myself a liberal. My positions on the issues haven't changed and if you call me a liberal I won't argue with but to be honest I don't want to be associated with those people.
My friend wrote back "You're not a liberal.
"Of course I am" I replied listing my liberal bona fades. Antiwar, pro-environment, in favor of progressive taxation, single payer health care system, pro-choice, and of course, pro freedom of speech.
As it turned out she may have been right. A few weeks later I posted the same opinion on a liberal bulletin board thread on a site that I had long been a member of and was promptly and viciously attacked as a racisist, a sexist and a hater of trans, gay and bisexual people.
Since the Clinton administration Democrats have been decoupling themselves from the liberal economic legacy of FDR and in its place assembled a coalition of interest groups many of which have very little in common with each other. Maybe that's where the nastiness, insularity, the preciousness, the insane notion that nothing can be questioned for to do so feeds the right wing agenda comes from.
These days I'm no longer calling myself a liberal. My positions on the issues haven't changed and if you call me a liberal I won't argue with but to be honest I don't want to be associated with those people.
72
"Liberals," the left, and progressives are all quite split on the idea of "freedom from speech." Those that stand rather for "freedom of speech" like Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Chait, Barack Obama, and others, should be congratulated and supported.
How I'd love to read that bulletin board thread.
Thank you for a very good stable statement (don't let Siri control your words; and I hate to go back and edit, After I get on a good heat prose-wise)
It's not that uncommon for words to get redefined over time. That's how languages evolve. So what?
4
Liberalism has produced every important progressive legislation in modern American history.
Denigrating liberalism is suicide, and the right wing will be happy to assist you.
Denigrating liberalism is suicide, and the right wing will be happy to assist you.
235
I proudly defend liberalism every day.
123
roosevelt great president
51
Liberals don't want to be called liberals anymore either. They don't want anyone to accidentally confuse them with someone who actually believes in liberty. They now preferred to be called socialists.
7
Sounds like only you want to refer to liberals as socialists. Stop parroting right wing talk radio.
5
A liberal is someone who favors amnesty for illegals because they can profit from the cheap labor. They pretend to be generous to Mexicans (who they could care less about) while they lower wages and employment for the working class. When confronted they are dismissive, pretending not to understand simple economics while the profits rise and living standards decline. Those who oppose their worsening conditions will be called "xenophobic" to divert attention from the greedy liberal capitalists to the desperate illegals.
10
There is a farm labor shortage now and no Republicans are running to the fields to take those jobs.
4
I can't agree. The history of liberalism demonstrates its strong support for workers' rights.
2
"The Liberals believe in each and every quack who sets up a booth at the county fair, including even the Communists. The Communists have a few talents too, but they always fall short of believing in Liberals."
- H.L. Mencken-
Nobody likes a patsy.
- H.L. Mencken-
Nobody likes a patsy.
6
Communists and Conservatives falling short together. Guess it must be their mutual cynicism.
2
H.L. Mencken disliked FDR, who not only saved the nation economically, but also saved the world from the Nazis.
So much for the "wisdom" of H.L. Mencken
So much for the "wisdom" of H.L. Mencken
3
'If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."'
- John F. Kennedy, accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination, September 14, 1960.
- John F. Kennedy, accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination, September 14, 1960.
309
President Kennedy wouldn't be considered a liberal today. The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the “confiscatory” property taxes being levied in too many cities. His fierce anti-communism, his religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches that most Dems might consider extreme today) and his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility puts him at the opposite end of the political spectrum. If JFK were here today, he would either have to renounce most of what he stood for or join the Republican party. Popular mythology has turned Kennedy into a liberal hero. Some of that mythmaking was driven by Kennedy aides, such as Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who had always wanted their boss to be more left-leaning than he was. Some of it was fueled by the Democratic Party’s emotional connection to the memory of a martyred president, and its understandable desire to link their priorities to his legacy. But Kennedy was no liberal. By any reasonable definition, he was a conservative — and not just by the standards of our era, but by those of his era as well. Sorry to burst your bubble but in today’s political environment, a candidate like JFK a conservative champion of economic growth, tax cuts, peace through strength — would be a Republican.
1
Let's look at liberal's position on poverty: "You need to help folks get back on the job," which is really the same positions the right has, ignore the economic institutions that cause poverty, FIX poor people.
Liberalis have never defended militant labor or unions, they were part of the death of it. All progress in this country was created by radicals, not by liberals were just jumped on the bandwagon when all the hard work was already done. Liberals always insist on open dialogue, rather than an understanding of how power works.
Liberals also don't understand how social justice struggle works. Where are the riot cops, the angry business owners, the hedge fund managers in liberal images of struggle? In liberalism, the other side is inherently evil, but this is not really self-evident. Liberalism will always be subservient to capitalism, and it will never be capable of fundamentally challenging it and changing our society in a profound way.
Join your local DSA, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about the class solidarity that liberals never talk about.
Liberalis have never defended militant labor or unions, they were part of the death of it. All progress in this country was created by radicals, not by liberals were just jumped on the bandwagon when all the hard work was already done. Liberals always insist on open dialogue, rather than an understanding of how power works.
Liberals also don't understand how social justice struggle works. Where are the riot cops, the angry business owners, the hedge fund managers in liberal images of struggle? In liberalism, the other side is inherently evil, but this is not really self-evident. Liberalism will always be subservient to capitalism, and it will never be capable of fundamentally challenging it and changing our society in a profound way.
Join your local DSA, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about the class solidarity that liberals never talk about.
14
I am a classical Liberal and have been all my life, it was the Democratic party that left me. I am not a socialist or a communist, and Identity politics are the worst form of Leftism and racism I have ever seen. People are individual souls and should be treated on their individual actions and merits, not the color of their skin or their sexuality/gender. That used to be a very liberal Democratic stance. Today that is blasphemy to the Left. Every victim group tries to 'out victim' each other now and the left eats its own.
112
Thomas Paine was a classical liberal too. Yet he was far to the left of the present Democratic Party. It is hard to imagine any major Democratic politician these days advocating, as Paine did, a basic income (i.e., citizen's dividend) as compensation for public land and natural resources becoming concentrated in private hands.
1
My grandparents were Liberals. Back then it was different and for most of the country, respectable. I can tell you as a historical witness that there is almost no resemblance between the so called Democrat party of today, and the one that existed before 1970. None. After McGovern, it's like the whole thing caught leprosy and got progressively worse each year since.
20
I'm not sure why the Democratic Party gets blamed for everything that has gone wrong when Democrats rarely hold power in this country.
Try electing Democrats and see what happens - either that or enjoy the world created by Republicans.
Try electing Democrats and see what happens - either that or enjoy the world created by Republicans.
3
Not so long ago, a liberal in US politics was one who stood up for a sensible, balanced approach between two poles:
1. law and order + support for the weak against the strong;
2. support for progress around the world + fierce opposition to revolutionary authoritarianism;
3. an ethos of broad social provision + respect for work and disdain for the dole;
4. commitment to legal immigration + rock-solid opposition to illegal immigration.
This was the ethos of Jack and especially Bobby Kennedy. Bobby was a tireless advocate for the poor, but also opposed welfare; he championed civil rights, but opposed any kind of disorder and was a fierce champion of law enforcement and rule of law generally.
The Democratic party's leadership, up through Bill Clinton, opposed communist regimes abroad and signaled their commitment at home to Americans who "work hard and play by the rules."
All of the above collapsed in the Obama era when the Democrats cynically decided to embrace identity politics as a political strategy.
Instead of commitment to rule of law and support for law enforcement, we have "Black Lives Matter."
Instead of Atty. Gen. Kennedy flying to the scene to _oppose_ local/state defiance of federal law, we have Democratic _support_ for the idiocy of "sanctuary cities."
Instead of support for people who work hard and play by the rules, the party's in thrall to virtue-signaling billionaire oligarchs who thumb their nose at the rest of us.
I want my party back.
1. law and order + support for the weak against the strong;
2. support for progress around the world + fierce opposition to revolutionary authoritarianism;
3. an ethos of broad social provision + respect for work and disdain for the dole;
4. commitment to legal immigration + rock-solid opposition to illegal immigration.
This was the ethos of Jack and especially Bobby Kennedy. Bobby was a tireless advocate for the poor, but also opposed welfare; he championed civil rights, but opposed any kind of disorder and was a fierce champion of law enforcement and rule of law generally.
The Democratic party's leadership, up through Bill Clinton, opposed communist regimes abroad and signaled their commitment at home to Americans who "work hard and play by the rules."
All of the above collapsed in the Obama era when the Democrats cynically decided to embrace identity politics as a political strategy.
Instead of commitment to rule of law and support for law enforcement, we have "Black Lives Matter."
Instead of Atty. Gen. Kennedy flying to the scene to _oppose_ local/state defiance of federal law, we have Democratic _support_ for the idiocy of "sanctuary cities."
Instead of support for people who work hard and play by the rules, the party's in thrall to virtue-signaling billionaire oligarchs who thumb their nose at the rest of us.
I want my party back.
43
I enjoyed your commentary--excellent and insightful.
3
Let me start with "support for progress around the world fierce opposition to revolutionary authoritarianism."
For those who know their history, the US government of neither party has genuinely supported that vision. Since the beginning of the Cold War, the US government has regularly supported and even put into power authoritarian governments (fascist, theocratic, etc), by revolutionary coup and other means including assassination. The US helped take out many democratically elected leaders in secular governments.
Legal and illegal immigration is largely an issue of definition. Mid-20th century saw changes in immigration laws. Most of the immigrants today called illegal were called legal back then.
Besides, we have the lowest illegal immigration right now than has been seen in a long time. Also, Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president of either party in many decades. No major Democratic politician is advocating illegal immigration or open borders.
Yet people like you act completely clueless about all of this.
For those who know their history, the US government of neither party has genuinely supported that vision. Since the beginning of the Cold War, the US government has regularly supported and even put into power authoritarian governments (fascist, theocratic, etc), by revolutionary coup and other means including assassination. The US helped take out many democratically elected leaders in secular governments.
Legal and illegal immigration is largely an issue of definition. Mid-20th century saw changes in immigration laws. Most of the immigrants today called illegal were called legal back then.
Besides, we have the lowest illegal immigration right now than has been seen in a long time. Also, Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president of either party in many decades. No major Democratic politician is advocating illegal immigration or open borders.
Yet people like you act completely clueless about all of this.
3
Advocating "work hard and play by the rules" makes little sense in an economic system where hard work isn't rewarded and the rules are tilted toward the rich. The Democratic party establishment switched it's loyalties from New Deal social democracy to New Democratic neoliberalism.
Job security is gone along with good benefits. Unemployment and undermployment is high because of neoliberal globalization, offshoring, deindustrialization, etc. Wages have been stagnating or dropping for most Americans for a half century.
The middle class is shrinking and, among what is left, the US no longer has the wealthiest middle class. Economic mobility has fallen behind other countries. Wealth and power has become concentrated into a plutocracy. The inequality that exists in the US is the highest that has ever been seen in world history.
As for "Black Lives Matter," they too want a commitment to rule of law and support for law enforcement that has commitment to rule of law. That is the problem. Back in the 1960s, the police got out of hand. It led to public outrage and police departments were reformed. The present police departments and people like you seem to have forgotten about that era of reform and what caused it.
Job security is gone along with good benefits. Unemployment and undermployment is high because of neoliberal globalization, offshoring, deindustrialization, etc. Wages have been stagnating or dropping for most Americans for a half century.
The middle class is shrinking and, among what is left, the US no longer has the wealthiest middle class. Economic mobility has fallen behind other countries. Wealth and power has become concentrated into a plutocracy. The inequality that exists in the US is the highest that has ever been seen in world history.
As for "Black Lives Matter," they too want a commitment to rule of law and support for law enforcement that has commitment to rule of law. That is the problem. Back in the 1960s, the police got out of hand. It led to public outrage and police departments were reformed. The present police departments and people like you seem to have forgotten about that era of reform and what caused it.
2
Reagan once said, after being a Dem for so long, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me." I think a lot of Americans felt that way during this past election cycle. That's why you had so many blue states, and former Dems, vote for Trump.
When I hear the word liberal, I think of FDR, John Maynard Keynes and Barack Obama. I guess things are changing. Someone like JFK and even Bill Clinton are considered moderates by today's Dem standard.
When the head of the DNC comes out and defiantly states that if you don't support abortion, then you can't be a Democrat, then you know the values of the party are shifting farther to the left.
When I hear the word liberal, I think of FDR, John Maynard Keynes and Barack Obama. I guess things are changing. Someone like JFK and even Bill Clinton are considered moderates by today's Dem standard.
When the head of the DNC comes out and defiantly states that if you don't support abortion, then you can't be a Democrat, then you know the values of the party are shifting farther to the left.
9
The majority of Americans support pro-choice. As I recall, even most on the political right don't want to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Sure most Americans want some common sense limitations to abortions, just as they want common sense controls of guns. But that doesn't change that Americans remain steadfast in their support of individual rights.
Abortions were common in the early to mid 20th century. It only became a major politicized issue in recent history.
The Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, has shifted way to the right on many issues such as economics, crime, and military.
Sure most Americans want some common sense limitations to abortions, just as they want common sense controls of guns. But that doesn't change that Americans remain steadfast in their support of individual rights.
Abortions were common in the early to mid 20th century. It only became a major politicized issue in recent history.
The Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, has shifted way to the right on many issues such as economics, crime, and military.
1
Liberals were once the vocal defenders of free speech--flag burning, Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood, pornography and obscenity, etc. Liberals understood that for free speech to exist, reprehensible speech (real or perceived) must be defended. Sadly, today's liberals are now the suppressors of free speech on campuses and in all forms of media. They are also fully wedded to political correctness, which itself places limitations on free speech through liberal constructs and personal prisms, while also fostering a very thin-skinned hyper-sensitivity. Additionally, modern liberals no longer practice tolerance in it's traditional form (i.e. respectful disagreement). For many liberals today, tolerance often means, "agree with me or you're intolerant." And from there they typically descend into hyperbolic name calling--"Nazi, fascist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, etc."--which is either historically insulting or simply vapid. Until liberalism returns to open and intelligent discourse on all issues, and embraces a rigorous defense of free and diverse speech, it will remain an embarrassment.
54
Free speech: yes. Criticism of that speech: yes. Having the right to say reprehensible things only seems to be protected from criticism by those who share those points of view.
2
Good job! Your broad, over-generalized vilification perfectly exemplifies the author's point.
2
Similarly, those on the very right, or on the alt right, disparage mainstream republicans and conservatives. I think it's a phenomenon in American political life where people on both extremes think that a perfectly harmonious society can be crafted if all of one side's talking points can be enacted and anyone closer to the center are sellouts for causing the dream to fail.
9
"Progressive" makes better sense to a lot of us on the left, though that's the case partly because the right has done such an effective job over a period of decades of turning "liberal" into an all-encompassing curse word, as if to utter it condemns the person at whom the label is directed. Perhaps what's more important is for the Democratic Party to return to its strong roots in the eras of FDR and LBJ and take stand that honestly pursue the best interests of the the average American, i.e., "the common good."
16
There are a number of interesting insights here, but no coherent definition of "liberal". Great example of why we need to drop the term, as well as "conservative" from political discourse. What I find interesting is that the nonsense--whatever you call it, my choice of a label is not polite--peddled by Ronald Reagan is still the dominant theme in American politics in spite of doing such damage to the majority of Americans. This is why, I think, that the two most successful Democratic politicians of the post 1980 period, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were not ideological, but cautious and pragmatic. They understood the climate.
2
I have described myself as a liberal since I first voted for Sen. George McGovern for President. I am proud to be a liberal and am concerned about divisions in the Democratic Party. Those divisions partially resulted in the election of Trump. Despite philosophical differences and the distaste of many for Trump, Republicans turned out in big numbers to vote for him. Many Democrats stayed home. Despite differences in income, education, race, etc., we should band together for the common good of defeating Republicans in 2018 and 2020.
28
The 2016 election proved true the saying: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Newsflash to Democrats: you won't fall in love with every candidate. Vote anyway. We can't always count on a young, charismatic leader to appear and excite the base a la Obama or Bill Clinton. If you stayed home because you thought Hillary Clinton was a boring, dull candidate, you may as well have voted for Trump.
1
Over the years liberalism has addressed some vital societal issues with political action resulting in legislation and supreme court decisions. However like the fireman who hasn't had a true fire to put out for so long that he questions his legitimacy, he begins to start fires so he can still be a the hero that puts them out. The neighbors are watching and they see the hero has become the arson and they are looking for a different kind of fire fighter.
1
Liberalism is the ideology of the governing elites. Liberalism is the ideology of the elites that took power from the old Estates system of Medieval times. To help prevent elite predatory behavior, the monarchies/aristocracies and clergy were forbidden to engage in commerce, manufacturing, or finance. Since these things were not forbidden to commoners, the most ambitious commoners soon had far more money, and thus political power.
Another huge difference is that in pre-liberal times, the old ruling class did nothing to earn their prestigious positions, and so had a moral obligation to look after the interests of the common people. Liberal elites tend to be self-made and owe nothing to anybody, and that's the way they govern.
Populism, on the other hand, is the assumption that a legitimate ruling class has both a moral and legal obligation to look after the interests of citizen and nation. The fact that only liberals would consider such a populism to be "controversial" explains exactly why they are so unpopular with We The People.
Another huge difference is that in pre-liberal times, the old ruling class did nothing to earn their prestigious positions, and so had a moral obligation to look after the interests of the common people. Liberal elites tend to be self-made and owe nothing to anybody, and that's the way they govern.
Populism, on the other hand, is the assumption that a legitimate ruling class has both a moral and legal obligation to look after the interests of citizen and nation. The fact that only liberals would consider such a populism to be "controversial" explains exactly why they are so unpopular with We The People.
3
An excellent examination of the trees, but missing the forest. Our Founding Fathers were and called themselves Liberals, what today we term "Classical Liberals" and whose political philosophies are today Center Right.
Progressivism, introduced with the election of Teddy Roosevelt and given structure by Woodrow Wilson, was a new philosophy further left and in most ways antithetical to Classical Liberalism.
Progressives, especially after WW2, undertook to quietly supplant Liberalism with Progressivism as the dominant force in the Democrat Party. And slowly but relentlessly, they have done so. Progressivism has become the dominant philosophy of the USA.
But today, the fruits of the Progressivism of Wilson and FDR are being seen in the fiscal and cultural failures of all levels of government and society, rightly or wrongly.
We cannot sustain the cost of Progressive policies nor can our society cohere under Progressivism's identity politics. This is an existential moment for the USA experiment. We must unite as one thing or the other, but as yet, we can't define either the one thing or the other. Time is running out, and the debate has yet to begin.
Progressivism, introduced with the election of Teddy Roosevelt and given structure by Woodrow Wilson, was a new philosophy further left and in most ways antithetical to Classical Liberalism.
Progressives, especially after WW2, undertook to quietly supplant Liberalism with Progressivism as the dominant force in the Democrat Party. And slowly but relentlessly, they have done so. Progressivism has become the dominant philosophy of the USA.
But today, the fruits of the Progressivism of Wilson and FDR are being seen in the fiscal and cultural failures of all levels of government and society, rightly or wrongly.
We cannot sustain the cost of Progressive policies nor can our society cohere under Progressivism's identity politics. This is an existential moment for the USA experiment. We must unite as one thing or the other, but as yet, we can't define either the one thing or the other. Time is running out, and the debate has yet to begin.
2
Well, talk to some of the Anti-Federalist founding fathers (Jefferson, Paine, etc) who criticized Christianity, plutocracy, corporatism, and centralized government. Some of them went so far as to advocate for social democracy, universal suffrage, black rights, and even economic redistribution (e.g., Paine's citizen's dividend). FDR's proposal of a Second Bill of Rights was partly inspired by Paine.
2
That Bernie Sanders is popular shows that liberalism is alive and well in the U.S.; this also shows that liberalism is not well-represented in the U.S. Congress.
8
I'm a liberal and proud of it, but I am not corporate democrat. The Bill Clintons of the world sullied liberalism, rather than defending and embracing it.
78
In the end, corporate liberalism always wins on that side of the political spectrum. Example one: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC fixing the nomination process so corporate liberal, Hillary Clinton, beat Bernie Sanders.
9
Corporate liberalism is not classic liberalism. Recall FDR's famous quote about entrenched economic interests: "I welcome their hatred."
2
I think most Americans are, "classically liberal" and right leaning. The problem is that the modern democrat party has become the party of the elites and some kind of pseudo communism that only really appeals to the fringe coasts extremists and a few middle America cities like Chicago, Madison, Iowa City, Austin, etc, but most people don't want anything to do with it.
7
In that case, you think wrong. Decades of polling and surveys show the American public to be very far to the political left on many major issues. And the majority keeps moving further left. The problem is that your views are promoted by the plutocracy that suppresses the silenced majority. This is why people like you can't understand the reason for Sanders being the most popular politician right now, even though he represents what once was mainstream politics earlier last century.
1
The problem started when liberalism was hijacked by communists and socialists, and re-branded as "progressive". Instead being the philosophy of freedom and individual rights liberalism became associated with equality and Marxist dogma. Tolerance became twisted into identity politics, which are only another iteration of the politics of class resentment. Individual rights and freedoms were distorted into something called "social justice", a concept which, like equality, can only be enforced by tyranny.
12
Progressivism never fit the left-right division. During the Populist and Progressive eras, progressive policies were supported by people across the political spectrum. FDR's New Deal would never have been possible without the support of conservatives, especially the religious right. Progressivism today is not any different than it was in the past. Sanders is advocating what once was mainstream politics earlier last century.
I will never, ever call myself, or align myself, with either conservatives or the far left progressives. I don't know what those terms mean anymore, either. But I know that I do not like what they stand for right now, and that I am happy to call myself a liberal.
3
The label does not matter to me, the substance of the platform does. Whether I call myself democrat, liberal, progressive or whatever. People who care about any stigma attached to a term should be looking deeper. Whatever I am, it is not conservative and what that term represents.
12
The author returns to the argument of Louis Hartz, author of "The Liberal Tradition in America," which is required reading for all American history graduate students. Hartz argued that the liberal frame of mind is the American frame of mind. I see liberalism not as a location along a left-right continuum, but rather as a way of thinking that seeks to balance the twin ideals articulated in the Declaration of liberty and equality, which are always in tension. Socialists generally emphasize equality, while economic conservatives generally emphasize liberty. Liberals may lean in either direction while seeking to preserve both. Liberalism seeks to respect majority rule and minority rights at the same time. Liberalism seeks to promote democracy while guarding against the excesses of democracy. Liberals are, I think, the guardians of checks and balances. Liberalism is not easy to defend, because liberalism seeks to preserve what people on both ends of the political spectrum view as good. Liberals are the guardians of the republican values of the American founders.
62
If "liberalism" is coming under attack from the Left, that, in my view, is because the election proved it to be rather weak. But the Left has been pushing against the Democratic Party center for a long time: witness Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders' campaign itself. Plus, both the statistic that family income has not moved since the 1970's, and the observation that millennials are living with their parents after college, is cause enough to see that "liberalism", as understood up until now, is not doing something. I think Mr. Saval is underlining something that has been underway, from the Left, at any rate, for some time. In other words, from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as taken shape today in Mr. Trump, there is not just objection, but strong objection to the economic situation. Mr. Trump may represent the working class, but Mr. Sanders represented the millennial interests, and both of them are strong for reform of the present situation. That is ground for common effort. In my view, It would strengthen liberals, too, if they would stand for something robust in ordinary politics, namely free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press, and, to add another, free trade. Such a defense, a strong one, would give more definition to the word liberalism, and one would think and hope, more love from the American people.
12
Liberal to most people basically means that the government is the solution not the problem. It also means that people answer to the government and not the other way around. That is what it means today. Doesn't matter what it meant a long time ago.
6
Of the scarlet letter L, in the immortal words of the great Declan McManus: "I'll wear it proudly."
11
Why do we call people Liberals here when the majority of what modern Liberals stand for would be called Socialist or Social Democrat at best, everywhere else in the world.
The article is right, being Liberal in Europe is the equivalent of being Libertarian in the States.
The article is right, being Liberal in Europe is the equivalent of being Libertarian in the States.
4
To be Liberal is to be progressive in thought and deed. I've never seen or heard a conservative idea that moved our country forward. Conservatives have no understanding of future, only that of the past. They fear change that advances equality at the cost of individual sacrifice. They all want to be a country of one.
16
There’s that smug elitist attitude the author referenced. Thanks for the pointed example.
Who wants to be a liberal? Frankly, it should be everybody, because "liberals" gave us everything good that we take for granted.
Freedom of speech? Brought to you by liberals, because we believe the state has no right to dictate what you think and what you can say.
Freedom to worship whichever deity you see fit? Brought to you by liberals, because we know no one has a monopoly on truth.
Being the citizen of a nation, rather than the subject of a king? Brought to you by liberals, because we believe that government derives its power from the consent of the governed not by the divine right of monarchs.
And that's just for starters. Pretty much everything we have been taking for granted - a free public education, a 40 hour work week, the host of public goods which form the basis of our neglected infrastructure, social insurance which sees to it that once you can no longer hold a job and must retire you don't die penniless, ill, and on the street, civil rights so that all of our citizens can participate in deciding our country's current and future direction, regulatory agencies which rein in capitalism's tendency to trample over the rights of the citizenry in its quest for profit - are ideas which liberals fought for, and in some cases died, to obtain. These were fought against tooth and nail by the conservatives who believe that only the few should be allowed such rights, or that the state should control what is permitted. All Americans should be liberals.
Freedom of speech? Brought to you by liberals, because we believe the state has no right to dictate what you think and what you can say.
Freedom to worship whichever deity you see fit? Brought to you by liberals, because we know no one has a monopoly on truth.
Being the citizen of a nation, rather than the subject of a king? Brought to you by liberals, because we believe that government derives its power from the consent of the governed not by the divine right of monarchs.
And that's just for starters. Pretty much everything we have been taking for granted - a free public education, a 40 hour work week, the host of public goods which form the basis of our neglected infrastructure, social insurance which sees to it that once you can no longer hold a job and must retire you don't die penniless, ill, and on the street, civil rights so that all of our citizens can participate in deciding our country's current and future direction, regulatory agencies which rein in capitalism's tendency to trample over the rights of the citizenry in its quest for profit - are ideas which liberals fought for, and in some cases died, to obtain. These were fought against tooth and nail by the conservatives who believe that only the few should be allowed such rights, or that the state should control what is permitted. All Americans should be liberals.
8
Too bad you can’t mandate that all Americans follow in lockstep, but then, that would truly make you a liberal.
Perhaps liberals have evolved unlike the "principled" ones on the left and right fringes. The term progressive is fine and captures that liberalism is ever evolving in response to real life applications. I prefer to adhere to liberal principles of openness and generosity while accepting the necessity for pragmatism in the pursuit of the greater good. Frankly, a real liberal accepts those on either extreme of the spectrum as ideology who are the truly elitist.
To me, Liberalism means "open to differences, recognizing diverse points of view, respecting the positions of others." Conservatism, on the other hand, stands for "bias against opposing views, ridiculing those who don't agree with my view, starving our common government in the name of freedom - which allows social darwinism to divide and reduce society to a competition, rather than a collaboration. Call me idealistic, naive, weak, soft - and I'll tell you not to forget to call me "liberal" too.
8
The word "liberal" definitely has its ambiguities now, but the actual situation is more complicated than just left, right, or center. Saval is correct to note that early "classical liberalism" emphasized individual freedoms and free trade that dominated the UK and the US into the late 19th century. Modern liberalism started to emerge in the late 19th century as a middle position between the individual-and-market-first classical liberals and the radicals (Marx and others) who wanted revolutionary reform. Modern liberals agreed (with classical liberals) about individual liberty but also were concerned about market failures and their attendant social destructiveness (as were radicals), as well as, later in the 20th century, by the exercise of social power in various exclusionary practices.
So now the left in the US is an alliance of progressives (the US version of radicals) and modern liberals, as exemplified by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The right, however, has its own conflicting tensions, too, between classical liberals (the extreme version of which lies in some forms of libertarianism), and traditional social conservatives (which includes the varieties of race-supremacists in its extreme versions).
Personal disparagement, character attacks and highly charged moral language are routine. Ronald Reagan didn't start it; he just picked it up and dusted it off. Our historical roots still influence what we do and say today.
So now the left in the US is an alliance of progressives (the US version of radicals) and modern liberals, as exemplified by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The right, however, has its own conflicting tensions, too, between classical liberals (the extreme version of which lies in some forms of libertarianism), and traditional social conservatives (which includes the varieties of race-supremacists in its extreme versions).
Personal disparagement, character attacks and highly charged moral language are routine. Ronald Reagan didn't start it; he just picked it up and dusted it off. Our historical roots still influence what we do and say today.
3
To clarify modern liberalism's central principles, they are mainly twofold:
1. Left to itself, the market will undergo boom-and-bust cycles that will repeatedly wreak social havoc. This calls for two responses: regulation to constraint market behavior (constrain, not direct) and a social safety net to ameliorate the economic damage to the worst-off.
2. Government and law is not the *only* possible source of tyranny. Social practices of exclusion can rise to that level too. Brutal enforcement of social norms can be an infringement on liberty.
1. Left to itself, the market will undergo boom-and-bust cycles that will repeatedly wreak social havoc. This calls for two responses: regulation to constraint market behavior (constrain, not direct) and a social safety net to ameliorate the economic damage to the worst-off.
2. Government and law is not the *only* possible source of tyranny. Social practices of exclusion can rise to that level too. Brutal enforcement of social norms can be an infringement on liberty.
It seems like everyone assumes that if you're a conservative, you voted for Trump. I wonder then, why anyone wants to be "conservative" anymore. Call me liberal, I'll take it as a compliment.
3
There is no shame in being a liberal or the values it represent, including decency, fairness, justice, openness, tolerance and accommodation. These are wonderful human values of a society in which I wish to live.
16
This article reminded me of the late New York mayor Ed Koch who used to claim that he was "a liberal with sanity" and stated that hopefully the listeners to his radio program would agree with most of his opinions but never all of them (lest they be considered insane)
He is surely missed these days
He is surely missed these days
5
So the Right and Left are united in their hatred of some concocted yet elusive enemy they both like to call "Liberal". Interesting. And what a waste of time and energy.
Perhaps I'm hopelessly outdated or "out of touch", but the (layperson) spectrum/terminology I'm familiar with and use as a basic guide is: Leftist--Liberal--Moderate-Centrist--Conservative--"Hard Right".
"Moderates"--Fence-sitters who tend to lean a bit Left/Liberal in their views, whether they realize it or not.
"Centrists"--Same as "Moderates", only leaning a bit Right/Conservative.
A lot of evidence acquired through many years of reading, listening, and observing has led me to conclude that a lot of what is called "Progressive" is actually Leftist, a lot of "Conservative" viewpoints are actually "Hard Right", and many (lay) people who identify as "Moderate" or "Centrist" aren't actually Moderate or Centrist, but are just too intellectually lazy and conflict-avoidant to learn about various issues, form an opinion, and engage in discussion/debate with others.
Instead of picking on Liberals for not being far enough to the "Left", it would be far more productive and worthwhile for Leftists/Progressives to focus their time and energy on getting Moderates off the fence. For a democracy (or even a Democratic Republic) to properly function, *all* of the People must engage.
Perhaps I'm hopelessly outdated or "out of touch", but the (layperson) spectrum/terminology I'm familiar with and use as a basic guide is: Leftist--Liberal--Moderate-Centrist--Conservative--"Hard Right".
"Moderates"--Fence-sitters who tend to lean a bit Left/Liberal in their views, whether they realize it or not.
"Centrists"--Same as "Moderates", only leaning a bit Right/Conservative.
A lot of evidence acquired through many years of reading, listening, and observing has led me to conclude that a lot of what is called "Progressive" is actually Leftist, a lot of "Conservative" viewpoints are actually "Hard Right", and many (lay) people who identify as "Moderate" or "Centrist" aren't actually Moderate or Centrist, but are just too intellectually lazy and conflict-avoidant to learn about various issues, form an opinion, and engage in discussion/debate with others.
Instead of picking on Liberals for not being far enough to the "Left", it would be far more productive and worthwhile for Leftists/Progressives to focus their time and energy on getting Moderates off the fence. For a democracy (or even a Democratic Republic) to properly function, *all* of the People must engage.
6
It's good to know I'm not the only one confused by modern liberalism. I can't help but align liberalism with neoliberalism in my head: and basically agree that it is abhorrent. The idealism of the 1960s (the dream of a world without borders and without hate) has been proven deeply flawed, and used for personal gain by very wealthy elites. Yet there are still liberals who cling to it and react with anger against anyone who speaks against it.
2
There is nothing liberal about liberals. Progressives are equally regressive. It's much easier just to identify who is a leftist. My moniker really should be leftistslayer but libslayer has a better ring to it. "Leftist" says it all. Notice that anyone who believes in civil society that is not dominated by intrusive central govt. is labeled by the left as "far right" even though the "Founders" of this country were all believers in the principles of the "Enlightenment" which is exactly what conservatives believe in.
3
Those on the left prefer the use of neo-liberal as their favorite form of vitriol, and the Clintons and third way centrists are the main targets of abuse.
I am in this camp, with the (typically liberal) admission that it is not a perfect philosophy; this may be another reason that the left and right, who display breezy confidence, regardless of what the facts say, despise liberals' flexibility.
So what makes a liberal today? A belief in free markets and free trade, with appropriate regulation to curb the worst instincts of capitalists, fiscal conservatism - the belief that deficits, left untamed - are a bad thing; liberal on social values and civil rights including free speech; respectful of individuals' privacy and the rights for adults to make their own mistakes, tempered by regulation when they may harm others; in foreign policy a belief in institutions and alliances to solve problems together with a willingness to intervene where necessary; and perhaps above all, a belief in the importance of using facts and data to determine good policy, regardless of its source
The last decade has not been a happy one for liberals. Free markets were contaminated with myopic greed and collapsed, foreign interventions have not been successful (Libya) causing a reluctance to intervene to stop the slaughter if innocents (Syria) and institutions are under attack from the left and the right.
But the pendulum swings and people stop at the precipice. Liberals will adapt and recover.
I am in this camp, with the (typically liberal) admission that it is not a perfect philosophy; this may be another reason that the left and right, who display breezy confidence, regardless of what the facts say, despise liberals' flexibility.
So what makes a liberal today? A belief in free markets and free trade, with appropriate regulation to curb the worst instincts of capitalists, fiscal conservatism - the belief that deficits, left untamed - are a bad thing; liberal on social values and civil rights including free speech; respectful of individuals' privacy and the rights for adults to make their own mistakes, tempered by regulation when they may harm others; in foreign policy a belief in institutions and alliances to solve problems together with a willingness to intervene where necessary; and perhaps above all, a belief in the importance of using facts and data to determine good policy, regardless of its source
The last decade has not been a happy one for liberals. Free markets were contaminated with myopic greed and collapsed, foreign interventions have not been successful (Libya) causing a reluctance to intervene to stop the slaughter if innocents (Syria) and institutions are under attack from the left and the right.
But the pendulum swings and people stop at the precipice. Liberals will adapt and recover.
4
Uh Oh!
The ruling party in Australia (which holds the center right position) is called The Liberal Party of Australia!
I wonder how much that confuses Republicans when our two countries work and deal with each other as we do?
Perhaps we should have it's name changed?
The ruling party in Australia (which holds the center right position) is called The Liberal Party of Australia!
I wonder how much that confuses Republicans when our two countries work and deal with each other as we do?
Perhaps we should have it's name changed?
I think we need to be clear about what liberal means. If it is really classic liberalism which I understand to be liberty based, I believe it is consistent with our founding values. My understanding is that under classic 19th century liberalism government lets you make your own decision as long as it does not violate the rights of others, and does not move individual material resources to a central government that decides to redistribute them. I believe a classic liberal would believe you should be able to smoke pot, or go without health insurance without other tax payers being forced to financially bail you out of either decision turns out to be a disasterous one. I expect the classic liberal would see such a bail out the role of private and individual charity.
I think many progressives who do not believe in classic liberalism have taken and damaged the good name of liberalism. Progessivism seems to be largely the opposite of classic liberalism. It seems to move decisions from the individual to a central government. It also tranfers financial resources from individual to a central government which decides how they should be spent for redistribution.
I think many progressives who do not believe in classic liberalism have taken and damaged the good name of liberalism. Progessivism seems to be largely the opposite of classic liberalism. It seems to move decisions from the individual to a central government. It also tranfers financial resources from individual to a central government which decides how they should be spent for redistribution.
4
Does this mean I need to stop calling leftists "libtards" and begin calling them "progtards?" I want to stay current.
I don't agree with all your views, John, but I believe that you have expressed your preferences and values clearly, with logical consistency, and in good faith.
I do believe in some degree of redistribution, especially with regard to the redistribution of income that is required to provide a backstop of universal, catastrophic health insurance to all citizens.
I agree with you that we should - in addition to providing universal, catastrophic coverage - allow the private sector to provide optional, supplemental health insurance plans that allow citizens if they choose to "top up" or extend their coverage via voluntary agreements with these providers of private health insurance plans.
Where we disagree on the private health insurance marketplace is whether those private plans should be allowed to make a profit. Every advanced western nation has agreed that, given the problem of adverse selection, it makes no sense to allow for-profit private health insurance and that private insurers should be heavily regulated not-for-profits.
This is the case in those advanced capitalist nations, Switzerland, Holland and Germany: all of these liberal capitalist nations accept the fact that health care is different and that private health insurance plans are fine so long as 1) they are backstopped by state-guaranteed universal catastrophic insurance and 2) they are forbidden from making a profit and are heavily regulated.
I do believe in some degree of redistribution, especially with regard to the redistribution of income that is required to provide a backstop of universal, catastrophic health insurance to all citizens.
I agree with you that we should - in addition to providing universal, catastrophic coverage - allow the private sector to provide optional, supplemental health insurance plans that allow citizens if they choose to "top up" or extend their coverage via voluntary agreements with these providers of private health insurance plans.
Where we disagree on the private health insurance marketplace is whether those private plans should be allowed to make a profit. Every advanced western nation has agreed that, given the problem of adverse selection, it makes no sense to allow for-profit private health insurance and that private insurers should be heavily regulated not-for-profits.
This is the case in those advanced capitalist nations, Switzerland, Holland and Germany: all of these liberal capitalist nations accept the fact that health care is different and that private health insurance plans are fine so long as 1) they are backstopped by state-guaranteed universal catastrophic insurance and 2) they are forbidden from making a profit and are heavily regulated.
3
Liberals have had a hard time of it lately. Liberalism has run directly into reality and reality always wins.
Real people want real solutions and all that liberalism offers is thoughts about what to do with the money that others have earned.
Real people want real solutions and all that liberalism offers is thoughts about what to do with the money that others have earned.
6
This is just another way to demonize and discredit the left. It's too bad so many who like to call themselves "progressive" have fallen for this. As for Clinton, many have forgotten that when he left office he was referred to as "the best Republican President ever!" He was hardly a liberal and we all knew it.
6
Yes we avoid the word liberal (and all labels) for a number of reasons one of which their meaning is not apparent to everyone and is misused by most. Not to be insulting (just realistic) but Americans are not well educated in this regard. The average person cannot properly define Socialism and that's a problem.
Progressive only means Not Regressive now (going backwards) = not much at all. I detest the word. It has gotten us nowhere.
Republicans have set the agenda/terms/dialogue since ReaganDemocrathave gone along with it. Have moved with great accommodation steadily to the center and allowed the country and themselves to be redefined for political expediency. Hence the reason for this article's existence.
What's left of "the left" has little trouble understanding what has happened.
Progressive only means Not Regressive now (going backwards) = not much at all. I detest the word. It has gotten us nowhere.
Republicans have set the agenda/terms/dialogue since ReaganDemocrathave gone along with it. Have moved with great accommodation steadily to the center and allowed the country and themselves to be redefined for political expediency. Hence the reason for this article's existence.
What's left of "the left" has little trouble understanding what has happened.
3
America's Founding Fathers were the liberals of their day. That would be classical liberals. The Progressive left continues to define itself today, rather hesitantly as liberal and one hundred years ago were roundly rejected by the American people. Learn American history..real history and the one you've managed to indoctrinate yourself into believing. We are doing it again by whatever definition the progressive left defines itself. The right does not hate liberals. It never has. Conservatives reject an ideology that bases what they think and do on emotions and feelings. There used to be a time when there was a conversation between both sides and agreement in the main for our mutual love of America arrived at in different ways. No longer. There can't be a dialogue when the progressive side would rather suppress free speech than either be around or even listen to an opposing view (i.e. the average college campus snowflake with their safe spaces, BLM and OWS) That's the position of the left and where it is today, by enabling, endorsing and inciting criminal violence of these very groups. Also when the left aligns itself with Muslims who want and prove they are perfectly willing to murder infidels, including and especially those practicing what progressives are and do, there will ultimately be a parting of the ways. It will not be beneficial to those who claim to be progressives and also distain religion. You're in for a huge wake-up call.
4
I believe a lot of people are fed up with today's liberals because they can't stop telling other people how to act, what to say, how to think and what to do. We can manage on our own, thank you.
18
What the word liberal means and what those who say they are liberal are seem to me to be two different an opposing things.
8
"Liberal bashing"? "Mocked by the left"? What sort of delusional world does the author live in? You have 95% of all mainstream media pushing a liberal ideology 24x7. An ideology that makes it very clear that as long as you follow the party line, without question, you will be taken are of. There will always be a warm. friendly excuse for every shortcoming, failure or bad decision you make. It will never be your failure and you will never be responsible/accountable.
6
Sorry, but I don't hear progressives beating up on "liberals." As a progressive myself, I embrace the term. I do, however, hear people rightly beating up on "Neo-Liberals," "Blue Dog Democrats," and "The Democratic Establishment" who are rightly criticized for weakening the Democratic brand. True progressives and liberals alike are sick of triangulation, sick of "Republican Lite" politics and demand that the Democratic Party get back to truly LIBERAL values like those espoused by Bernie Sanders -- and FDR!
14
Attacks on liberals and the ideology of liberalism from the right and left of the political spectrum is nothing more than destruction of the center. If the "center" cannot hold then you are left with two polarized factions antithetical to each other, with no common ground for compromise...what we are seeing develop today. I think most present day Americans are liberal to one degree or another and that is the true center of American politics. Destroy it at your peril.
5
Somewhere along the path of political history, the true definition of Conservatives & Liberals eroded to a point beyond recognition.
Historically, Conservatives we're fiscally conscious people - those who believed in the betterment of their country, through fiscal prudence, strong budget management, and lower taxes (balancing budgets and managing debt we're imperative to a country's 'go-forward' agenda).
Liberals, have typically held themselves along advocacy lines of social & economic equality (including programs like universal health care, equal opportunity/inclusiveness).
This is where the historic party lines used to be drawn.
The politics of today, however, has morphed into a structure that 100% services special interest groups. Gone are the days where politicians worked across party lines for the betterment of their country and people. Today, your job is to pander to small, niche groups, that hold a bizarre level of power in the political system.
Think the NRA, or the pro-life movement. The tea party, fossil fuel industry, wall street or uber wealthy super PACs.
17% of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters - yet they yield the power to ruin a Republicans career.
60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal - and 70% support Roe v. Wade.
True Conservatism & Liberalism are dead in this country - what's left are small, selfish groups, shamelessly pedaling their own interests via the threat of career ruination, or political financial destruction.
Historically, Conservatives we're fiscally conscious people - those who believed in the betterment of their country, through fiscal prudence, strong budget management, and lower taxes (balancing budgets and managing debt we're imperative to a country's 'go-forward' agenda).
Liberals, have typically held themselves along advocacy lines of social & economic equality (including programs like universal health care, equal opportunity/inclusiveness).
This is where the historic party lines used to be drawn.
The politics of today, however, has morphed into a structure that 100% services special interest groups. Gone are the days where politicians worked across party lines for the betterment of their country and people. Today, your job is to pander to small, niche groups, that hold a bizarre level of power in the political system.
Think the NRA, or the pro-life movement. The tea party, fossil fuel industry, wall street or uber wealthy super PACs.
17% of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters - yet they yield the power to ruin a Republicans career.
60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal - and 70% support Roe v. Wade.
True Conservatism & Liberalism are dead in this country - what's left are small, selfish groups, shamelessly pedaling their own interests via the threat of career ruination, or political financial destruction.
18
I seem to recall the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s disliked liberals, too.
2
This is one of the most interesting--and enlightening--articles I've read in some time.
27
Well, Medicaid says you have to be totally destitute to get it. The poor on welfare usually were able to get Medicaid, which also meant you went to clinics that were no so fancy and very furgal practitioners. So even so people with bad health conditions had to race to the bottom losing everything to get their health care covered, and then the environment for their care felt shabby.
That is where Hillary Clinton came in when Bill was president trying to implement universal health care. Well, Companies love when government is will to step in and cover cost. When has the government ever been good at staying on budget or getting a good deal? When government pays private companies directly, cost shoot up drastic consistently in every industry.
We don't need government in health care for the masses. We do need laws to protect people with pre existing conditions. We do need to educate people about the consequences of not having health insurance, but then let them free to chose how they would, increasing competition and driving down cost. When government is involved it also stifle competition. So yes, although it seems scary government needs to get out of healthcare insurance industry and keep it for the most needy. ford Obama Care and what is the point of working if someone on welfare, like 50% of the US get it for free, dragging the middle class back into the same financial situation as though that don't work. How is that fair.
That is where Hillary Clinton came in when Bill was president trying to implement universal health care. Well, Companies love when government is will to step in and cover cost. When has the government ever been good at staying on budget or getting a good deal? When government pays private companies directly, cost shoot up drastic consistently in every industry.
We don't need government in health care for the masses. We do need laws to protect people with pre existing conditions. We do need to educate people about the consequences of not having health insurance, but then let them free to chose how they would, increasing competition and driving down cost. When government is involved it also stifle competition. So yes, although it seems scary government needs to get out of healthcare insurance industry and keep it for the most needy. ford Obama Care and what is the point of working if someone on welfare, like 50% of the US get it for free, dragging the middle class back into the same financial situation as though that don't work. How is that fair.
2
Wow. This article sure does try to redefine a perfectly good word beyond any kind of reality.
Why not take a moment to actually look up the word "liberal," and to see where it comes from, what it means, and what words relate to it?
It comes from the Latin, for "free man." or a free thinker.
It also means generous.
Liberals were the revolutionaries who fought the English Conservative Redcoats.
Liberals are the ones who want progress, and believe in a more open, advanced society, with more fairness and justice, who are open to new ideas.
Here are some synonyms for "liberal"
Bountiful, copious, full, generous, luxuriant, avant-garde, breakthrough, cutting-edge, excellent, exceptional, first, foremost, forward, precocious, broad, expansive, plentiful.
Those who seek to redefine such a powerful word are just the opposite.
Let's look up some antonyms to "liberal."
Regressive, intolerant, limited, narrow, greedy, lacking, mean, narrow-minded, ungenerous, wanting.
What's interesting, is when you shine some reality onto a word, by actually going to a real dictionary or thesaurus, and especially in looking at the history of a word and where it came from... one can get quite a different impression than what the propagandists want you to see.
Personally, I prefer the light side, to the dark side, so you can always call me a proud Liberal.
Why not take a moment to actually look up the word "liberal," and to see where it comes from, what it means, and what words relate to it?
It comes from the Latin, for "free man." or a free thinker.
It also means generous.
Liberals were the revolutionaries who fought the English Conservative Redcoats.
Liberals are the ones who want progress, and believe in a more open, advanced society, with more fairness and justice, who are open to new ideas.
Here are some synonyms for "liberal"
Bountiful, copious, full, generous, luxuriant, avant-garde, breakthrough, cutting-edge, excellent, exceptional, first, foremost, forward, precocious, broad, expansive, plentiful.
Those who seek to redefine such a powerful word are just the opposite.
Let's look up some antonyms to "liberal."
Regressive, intolerant, limited, narrow, greedy, lacking, mean, narrow-minded, ungenerous, wanting.
What's interesting, is when you shine some reality onto a word, by actually going to a real dictionary or thesaurus, and especially in looking at the history of a word and where it came from... one can get quite a different impression than what the propagandists want you to see.
Personally, I prefer the light side, to the dark side, so you can always call me a proud Liberal.
490
Do you even see that writing 3 lines of self-congratulatory adjectives is exactly what this article is about?
97
Nope. It's simply what the word means. Haters will hate, but that's just English.
Ever since I was a kid, it was all about "good" vs. "evil." Reagan was a very evil person, who wanted to redefine good, though. he would disparagingly call good people "do-gooder goody two shoes" and similar derogatory variations.
Everybody wants to appear to be good and to justify their ways, especially the selfish, evil ones who would gladly see harm come to many, like the Republicans in Congress, who want to throw millions under the bus when it comes to health care.
So rather than accept the fact they are simply evil, they prefer to rationalize their philosophy and redefine what is good and liberal in the world instead.
Ever since I was a kid, it was all about "good" vs. "evil." Reagan was a very evil person, who wanted to redefine good, though. he would disparagingly call good people "do-gooder goody two shoes" and similar derogatory variations.
Everybody wants to appear to be good and to justify their ways, especially the selfish, evil ones who would gladly see harm come to many, like the Republicans in Congress, who want to throw millions under the bus when it comes to health care.
So rather than accept the fact they are simply evil, they prefer to rationalize their philosophy and redefine what is good and liberal in the world instead.
127
And you are proving the author's point, by missing the point of the article.
Its not just those on the right who are using liberal as a pejorative, its those on the left as well.
Words meanings change over time, thats just English.
Its not just those on the right who are using liberal as a pejorative, its those on the left as well.
Words meanings change over time, thats just English.
7