What Constitutes Liberalism?

[No*s]

I've been reading Lilith's thread on liberalism, and well, it sparred me to want to post another thread.

What constitutes liberalism? It really does seem to change in the eye of the beholder. I would post comments in Lilith's thread...but I don't think I'd fit most definitions of liberalism .

The definition I tend to operate under is, frankly, meaningless. I have tended to say a "conservative" is one who desires to preserve what has been handed down, unless it's broken. A liberal, consequently, desires to change that which was handed down to improve it. However, such a dichotomy makes both parties liberal.

So...I'd like to ask the folks on this board to define it .

 

[Fluffy]

Well all aspects of liberals and conservatives basically stem from the definition you have already provided. Conservatives like to stick to tried and tested solutions to problems whilst liberals tend to be open minded towards new ideas.

Therefore a liberal is someone who is not set in their ways and constantly tries to change things (for better or worse).

 

[No*s]

Well all aspects of liberals and conservatives basically stem from the definition you have already provided. Conservatives like to stick to tried and tested solutions to problems whilst liberals tend to be open minded towards new ideas.

Therefore a liberal is someone who is not set in their ways and constantly tries to change things (for better or worse).

I'm afraid I cannot agree with that definition, though, because I feel it renders it meaningless. There are no conservatives then. The current group of "conservatives" have actually made quite a few rather novel changes to the way they do things. Under the definition, they wouldn't constitute conservatives but liberals.

 

[lilithu]

The definition I tend to operate under is, frankly, meaningless. I have tended to say a "conservative" is one who desires to preserve what has been handed down, unless it's broken. A liberal, consequently, desires to change that which was handed down to improve it. However, such a dichotomy makes both parties liberal.

Hi No*s, namaste. Thank you for this thread.

I would agree with your definitions of conservative and liberal. Despite all the rhetoric, ideally, both sides want what's best. The difference is that they don't agree on what that is.

I would say that conservatives tend to want to maintain things as they are, or return things back to some perceived better past state, because the status quo has worked for them. It preserves a way of life with which they are comfortable.

I'd say that liberals tend to want to change things because they perceive that something is not working; they perceive that something is unfair. The power structure of society as it is currently set up serves to maintain this unfairness and thus needs to be changed.

Whether or not things really are unfair is the question. I tend to think that they are. But from this definition, it is based on perception, and a liberal can switch to a conservative as his or her perceptions change. Happens all the time.

(As Churchill said: "Show me a young man who's a conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old man who's a liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain." But I'd rather have a heart than a brain any day! )


Another way to look at it is:
liberals believe that the govt should regulate financial matters but not social matters.
conservatives believe that the govt should regulate social matters but not financial matters.
libertarians believe that the govt should do as little regulating as possible.
And we don't talk about the people who think that the govt should regulate everything.

I personally think that the govt should regulate the actions of corporations (tho not as much as some liberals would like) because they have the power to affect so many, but regulate the actions of individuals as little as possible (also not as much as some liberals would like, as in gun control, smoking bans, etc.)


Lastly, my favored definition of "liberal" comes straight out of the dictionary:

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberalism

I believe in the natural goodness of humans, but not of groups of humans. So, imo, individuals should be afforded liberties until they demonstrate that they can't handle them, but I am suspicious of large groups of people - corporations, political parties (yes, that includes the Dems), etc. For some reason we humans get more unreasonable when we form tribes than when we're interacting one-on-one. The majority tries to tyrranize the minority, and govt is needed to stop that.

 

[lilithu]

The current group of "conservatives" have actually made quite a few rather novel changes to the way they do things. Under the definition, they wouldn't constitute conservatives but liberals.

You mean the NeoCons? Yes, they are an interesting group. They distress traditional conservatives almost as much as they do liberals. The way that I look at them is that they are trying to return American to some ideal that they perceive existed in the past, and they are doing so using some of the tools that liberal activists have used. Another way to look at is is distribution of wealth/power. Does the person want it concentrated or dispersed?

But people are complicated. I doubt that we could come up with a definition that would not have exceptions.

As a related asside, one thing that I found most fascinating about the term paper that I did last semester was that Christian evangelicals, the guys that liberals tend to disparage as conservatives, started off as liberals/progressives. They were the first ones to be abolitionists and feminists. Hooray for Charles Grandison Finney!

 

[No*s]

Thank you Lilithu. I see that you're responding again, so I'm going to bide my time . I have a feeling you're going to respond to my response about the current state of conservatives.

In your definition, I am definately libertarian-leaning...with the only compromises made because I don't trust corporations either.

 

[No*s]

You mean the NeoCons? Yes, they are an interesting group. They distress traditional conservatives almost as much as they do liberals. The way that I look at them is that they are trying to return American to some ideal that they perceive existed in the past, and they are doing so using some of the tools that liberal activists have used. Another way to look at is is distribution of wealth/power. Does the person want it concentrated or dispersed?

But people are complicated. I doubt that we could come up with a definition that would not have exceptions.

As a related asside, one thing that I found most fascinating about the term paper that I did last semester was that Christian evangelicals, the guys that liberals tend to disparage as conservatives, started off as liberals/progressives. They were the first ones to be abolitionists and feminists. Hooray for Charles Grandison Finney!

Yes, the Neo-Cons are the people I had in mind. They seem to have usurped the title of conservitive, and I won't yield it to them. I'm not entirely convinced they want to restore America to an ideal past, so much as make an ideal future. So many policies are simply so unhistoric as to be indefensable.

Yeah, on the Evangelicals, they did start out on the left..and I mean the far left. It was funny taking some Baptist history classes and watching the lights suddenly turn on there.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Conservative= "what's mine is mine"
Liberal= "What do you need?"

Conservative= "My way or the highway"
Liberal= "How can we compromise?"

Conservative= "Go away! Don't bother me!"
Liberal= "How can I help?"

Conservative= "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"
Liberal= "Help me to understand you better."

Conservative= "Success at ANY price!"
Liberal= "Lets be fair about this."

Conservative= "Kill em all and let God sort 'em out."
Liberal= "All we need is love!"

Is this simplistic? Of course! I am a simple man you ninny! But, it's how I really feel for most of the GOP faithful.

 

[No*s]

Is this simplistic? Of course! I am a simple man you ninny! But, it's how I really feel for most of the GOP faithful.

There is truth to that. I'd only change it to make both sides' dialogues match .

 

[lilithu]

Conservative= "what's mine is mine"
Liberal= "What do you need?"

Conservative= "My way or the highway"
Liberal= "How can we compromise?"

Conservative= "Go away! Don't bother me!"
Liberal= "How can I help?"

Conservative= "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"
Liberal= "Help me to understand you better."

Conservative= "Success at ANY price!"
Liberal= "Lets be fair about this."

Conservative= "Kill em all and let God sort 'em out."
Liberal= "All we need is love!"

Is this simplistic? Of course! I am a simple man you ninny! But, it's how I really feel for most of the GOP faithful.

lol! I have one to add to your list.

As a dear ex once defined it:
Conservative= "It's every man for himself."
Liberal= "We're all in this together."


The problem with this discussion, and this is true of the discussions on religions as well, is do we define liberalism by the best of our ideals or by the actual actions of people who self-identify as liberal?

I know quite a few self-identified "liberals" who think like "conservatives" if that's how we're going to define the terms.

When wading thru politics, I end up arguing with "my side" at least as much as "the other side." Believe me, there are plenty of "liberals" at Berkeley who are no more interested in understanding or compromising with conservatives than the people at Fox news are in being "fair and balanced." I agree with you, Net Doc, that liberalism is supposed to be about being open-minded, but in reality there are just a many people on the left who are convinced that they alone are right and the other side is "evil." I also know liberals who are only liberals because they happen to be born into a group that's disenfranchised. They're pushing for change because it's to their advantage. And if it weren't, they wouldn't. That's a major reason why we have so much trouble uniting the Dems - too many conflicting interests and not enough willingness to sacrifice a bit on one's own agenda in order to achieve the common good.

(I fear that I am not the best person for this website that I'm creating, since I will probably alienate as many liberals as not.)

 

[No*s]

(I fear that I am not the best person for this website that I'm creating, since I will probably alienate as many liberals as not.)

I would beg to differ. It's your desire not to be unfair that would make you worth listening to. There's innumerable party sites for both Dems and Reps, but frankly, precious few who really care about anything less than total victory. You have intelligence, and clearly have passion on the issue, and when you combine it with a desire to be fair, you have something that's pretty rare. It's the perfect combination for a good website IMO.

 

[lilithu]

In your definition, I am definately libertarian-leaning...with the only compromises made because I don't trust corporations either.

I'll refrain from imposing my labels upon you. Let's just say that I suspect we agree on the issues more often than we disagree, regardless of what we choose to call ourselves.

And for me personally, one of the goals of my web site is to get libertarians to consider that they may have more in common with liberals than they thought.

 

[No*s]

I'll refrain from imposing my labels upon you. Let's just say that I suspect we agree on the issues more often than we disagree, regardless of what we choose to call ourselves.

And for me personally, one of the goals of my web site is to get libertarians to consider that they may have more in common with liberals than they thought.

I wouldn't worry about labeling me. I've imposed the label on myself quite a few times . The only reason I'm not a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, is that I don't think they've learned sufficiently from history. The total deregulation of industry would be disastrous. It's this problem that leads me to lean towards the Jeffersonian Party.

On your website, I look forward to seeing what you put up . The biggest concerns I have with liberalism (and obviously Neo-Cons), is that it seems to want to seek to expand the power of the state. Like you, I don't trust large groups, especially when they can jail me.

I do think, though, that you have a point. We probably agree far more than we disagree.

 

[Sunstone]

As everyone knows nowadays, liberalism is a desire to destroy society via the insidious means of liberalizing sexuality, religion, laws, and so forth, and by creating a welfare-dependent underclass. There is no such thing as a liberal who is patriotic, nor any such thing as a liberal who is right about anything political. I hope this helps to clear up any misunderstandings about liberalism.

 

[lilithu]

As everyone knows nowadays, liberalism is a desire to destroy society via the insidious means of liberalizing sexuality, religion, laws, and so forth, and by creating a welfare-dependent underclass. There is no such thing as a liberal who is patriotic, nor any such thing as a liberal who is right about anything political. I hope this helps to clear up any misunderstandings about liberalism.

You forgot to mention that liberals are against apple pie. Would anyone like another piece of organically grown tofu?

 

[Sunstone]

It is well known to those who would subvert our society that the cornerstone, the very foundation, upon which it rests is apple pie. This is why you simply will not find liberals, Hollywood elites, and other suspect people praising apple pie. They know that to do so is to bolster the very society they seek to destroy.