Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am sure there are a lot of definitions but my in my opinion, today's "liberal" is someone that realizes you can not stand still. The world changes. Environments change, politics change, the economy changes. In order to survive you can not take morals and attitudes that are 50+ years old and try to apply them to today's or tomorrows world. You have to adapt to survive and you have to try to be smart about it. It does not mean you will always succeed but you try and keep what works and modify or change what does not. Saying "this is the way we have always done it' just does not work any longer.
I don't disagree with most of your post but I do believe people in the past did what it took to survive during their time period. Their actions have consequences today so we have to respond differently.
A Liberal is like a wounded animal with it's tail between it's legs.... lose an election and the Liberal will snap at you, snarling and growling. The Liberal never gets over LOSING anything.
Been through this before. I keep going back to the dictionary definition (Merriam Webster):
Liberal: "one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways"
Conservative: "one who adheres to traditional methods or views"
I find these definitions still apply. Note, there are no value judgments in the above. There are good things about traditional ways, and also sometimes change is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I use John F. Kennedy's definition of a liberal and I agree since I am one.
“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.”
Leo58 was getting at the same meaning expressed by President Kennedy, imho.
Quote:
...We are by nature a species that is averse to risk and loss. Often we make decisions on the basis of what we are too worried about losing, rather than on the basis of what we might gain. This works out to be a rather serviceable approach in many circumstances. People do not want to lose control, they do not want to lose their freedom, they do not want to lose their lives, their families, their jobs, their possessions. High stakes gambling is best left to those who can afford to lose the money. Las Vegas didn’t build all those multi-million dollar casino hotels because vacationers are winning all the time! And so, in real life, we take precautions. We avoid unnecessary risks. The odds may not be stacked against us, but the consequences of losing at times are so great that we would prefer to forego the possibilities of gain in order not to lose what we have. And yet, on occasion this can be a most unfortunate decision too. History has shown time and time again that businesses which avoid risks often are unable to compete successfully with those willing to move more boldly into new markets or into new product lines.
Any heuristic is only a maneuver, perhaps a shortcut or impulse to think or act in one way rather than another, but certainly not a failsafe rule. It may work out well much of the time to rely on the heuristic, but it will not work out for the best all of the time.
For example, people with something to lose tend toward conservative choices politically as well as economically. Nothing wrong with that necessarily. Just an observation about the influence of Loss Aversion heuristic on actual decision making. We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to call for “radical” change. Regrettably, however, when the call for change comes, it often requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations, or, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something.
Critical Thinking: What It Is & Why It Counts by Peter Facione
Which makes Trump one of the most liberal presidents we've had.
Well, maybe in one sense: Trump is definitely unorthodox in his manners. And many would say that Trump is not a conservative. But he does appeal to conservatives who want to cling to, or go back to, traditional ways. These are people who feel their way of life is threatened by liberals and the changes they represent.
Think how our society has changed since the 1950s. Used to be that people were self-reliant, and a man with a HS education could support his family on a blue-collar wage. No more; now his wife is likely to be the primary breadwinner. Used to be everyone was a Christian, and gay people kept in the closet. Now religious values are eroding, and same-sex marriage is common. Whites went from 90% of the population in 1950 to 60% today, and will soon me a minority.
All of this is very upsetting to a conservative, whereas liberals embrace change and even want to push the envelope. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I think a balance is probably best.
Well, maybe in one sense: Trump is definitely unorthodox in his manners. And many would say that Trump is not a conservative. But he does appeal to conservatives who want to cling to, or go back to, traditional ways. These are people who feel their way of life is threatened by liberals and the changes they represent.
Trump is quasi-liberal in his disregard for precedent, be it in treaties or trade agreements or the conventions of public life. He’s most anti-liberal in this two signature priorities: trade and immigration. The liberal approach would be to minimize state-intervention. The conservative approach would be to favor the group to which one belongs – in this case, the nation-group – regarding all others, including allies, as potential adversaries, or at most friends of convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Think how our society has changed since the 1950s. ...
All of this is very upsetting to a conservative, whereas liberals embrace change and even want to push the envelope. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I think a balance is probably best.
It may also be argued that “true conservative” would still be smarting over the changes throughout the 20th century, that made the American blue-collar middle class possible. Such a person would pine not for the 1950s but for centuries prior, when only aristocrats could own land, when the economic system was more feudal than capitalistic, and the masses of people were landless peasants or outright serfs.
Trump is quasi-liberal in his disregard for precedent, be it in treaties or trade agreements or the conventions of public life. He’s most anti-liberal in this two signature priorities: trade and immigration. The liberal approach would be to minimize state-intervention. The conservative approach would be to favor the group to which one belongs – in this case, the nation-group – regarding all others, including allies, as potential adversaries, or at most friends of convenience.
What?
Isolationism and tariffs and appealing to union workers are historically liberal territory. Conservatives embrace the free market and its ability to sort things out for itself.
It may also be argued that “true conservative” would still be smarting over the changes throughout the 20th century, that made the American blue-collar middle class possible. Such a person would pine not for the 1950s but for centuries prior, when only aristocrats could own land, when the economic system was more feudal than capitalistic, and the masses of people were landless peasants or outright serfs.
What you're saying is, it depends on your frame of reference. Absolutely. In 1996, a "liberal" democratic president signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy seemed liberal back then; today it seems quite anachronistic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
