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.
That's a good point, Liberals are often lumped in with socialists, anarchists, militants and the like but in reality the term Liberal is a term as open to perception as 'progressive' which has probably become the most overly used word in politics right now.
The caricature of the term 'Liberal' has traditionally been applied by its detractors (on the left and right) to an upper-middle-class dinner party friendly brand of Liberalism where diluted ideals are the dish of the day. One of banquets where overpriveleged elites indulge in lavish exubernce, quaffing champers and chomping caviar whilst latching on to the most 'trendy' causes of the hour. And whether that be rights for Guatemalan orphans, green issues or acts of poverty and oppression in Africa or Malaysia is irrelevant. As long as said issue is uncontroversial in terms of mainstream politics (where Liberals take the centre ground) and can give their Liberal credentials a superficial boost when they toast the party activists is all that really matters. As long as they get to impose the same economic policies as the Republicans when they return to the day job and can turn their nose up at the Union man waving a placard or the homeless man gasping for shelter on the way homw at the end of the day then all is well and good with the world.
Problems far away don't have to be solved you see, as long as the problem exists far enough away from your day to day region so as to become less urgent and pressing once the seminar slide show is done and an usher can swiftly give the attendees a quick return to the canopes and prawn sandwiches. Yes, Liberals are radical, but usually only on social issues and policies that effect people living 'somewhere else', preferably hemispheres away.
Republicans are very much Liberals too, aggressively 'neo-Liberal' being the exact definition when referring to the economic policies proposed by the party. But in terms of economics there hasn't been that much of a gulf between the major parties. Bill Clinton was very much a pro-active neo-Liberal too which just goes to prove that being a Liberal in modern politics is generally just a facade to disguise the fact that whoever's in power usually has to bow to the same vested interests pulling the strings and monopolising democracy from their boardrooms in the financial sector.
I would dispute the statement that those on the left are keen to define themselves in terms of being 'radical' or 'leftist' though. Don't you think that policies that redistribute wealth from the bottom and middle up to an already over-priveleged few who are reaping all the rewards and draining the world of its resources are pretty radical in ideology too?
It may amaze some Americans to hear this but there are many parts of the world where the term socialism is not a word to be ashamed of or embarrased about. In Norway they have actually eradicated child poverty. It can be done if the will is there. It doesn't have to be a new age meritocracy of dictatorial austerity and economic retraction.
For too long we've been dictated to as to where the political compass lies on the centre-ground morality dial and it is usually the media organisations owned by those who benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy that have the biggest say when it comes to pointing this compass. The perceived middle-ground is a figment of our imagnation and what apppears middle-ground to some (i.e, invading Afghanistan and bombing thousands of innocent families to death in Iraq) is unjustifiably repulsive to others.
There is no centre ground, just an implementation of establishment sponsored ideals designed to convince the masses into accepting the fact that high unemployment, low wages and budget cuts to bail out the financial sector that has already robbed you blind are part of a new world order heralded by those who behold a stoic patrotism in pain and a noble virtue in economic regression.
Liberal means to me leftist. It also means hypocrit because I've heard the word tolarance used over and over by them and I've seen nothing but complete intolarance from them. I could list it all but why bother one of them will just post under me with just a smart*** one line response that means nothing.
You are 100% correct they are tolerant of everyone who agrees with them. If you do not believe as they do they are the most hateful intolerant animal on earth.
The difference between a liberal and their claiming to be tolerant and a bucket of horse manure is the bucket
These posts are excellent writing and interesting ideas. However you have scratched open the scab of class and privilege with you description of a group of upper crust "Liberals". At least the upper crust "Conservatives" are willing to admit they see the poor as an opportunity for exploitation and potential profit.
I base my Liberalism on the base of Liberty. I champion the individual over the group even when the group is not government but economic. I believe not only are all people created equal but that they all should have equal opportunity to succeed at what they want to do. I believe a system that supplies success on a gilded platter for a few while instituting insurmountable obstacles for the many is inherently unjust and uneconomical.
There are places where I disagree with the "drawing room" liberals. I do not believe warehousing the poor in ghettos does anyone, except those that might fear competition from properly educated poor, any good. This just states that the poor are not born equal because they do not have enough money. Therefore they can never be of use to anyone. Well human skill and talent are provided to both the rich and the poor in equal amounts. It is the rich bums are admired and the poor bums are disparaged. The talented rich are supported and the equally talented poor are crushed by the daily burden of survival. We are created equal and separated in life by draconian economics and social systems.
Another place I disagree with many Liberals is my stance on the INDIVIDUAL right and responsibility to defend yourself from assault. I do not believe in restricting personal, not militia, firearms in any manner. Yes, this does appear to increase the risk of school shootings but these can be stopped by armed adults if they are available.
As a Liberal I do believe in government supported schools, from K to postgraduate, libraries, Nature Parks, roads and most of the rest of the services and facilities that aid the individual in developing themselves into whatever they want to be. I believe the possibility of helping a creative medical doctor outweighs the cost of supporting a drunken lout.
Why don't you try making an argument instead of hurling epithets? I tolerate your grade school playground outbursts even though they are quite insulting. They are also quite revealing of your intelligence, self control and basic civility.
I believe a system that supplies success on a gilded platter for a few while instituting insurmountable obstacles for the many is inherently unjust and uneconomical.
We agree on a lot of things. But I would like to hear more about the 'insurmountable obstacles'.
Liberal means to me leftist. It also means hypocrit because I've heard the word tolarance used over and over by them and I've seen nothing but complete intolarance from them. I could list it all but why bother one of them will just post under me with just a smart*** one line response that means nothing.
You are a very confused person.
Liberal does not necessarily mean leftist. Consult a dictionary.
Why don't you try making an argument instead of hurling epithets? I tolerate your grade school playground outbursts even though they are quite insulting. They are also quite revealing of your intelligence, self control and basic civility.
I know you don't see it, but you just proved a lot of others points here!
Why don't you try making an argument instead of hurling epithets? I tolerate your grade school playground outbursts even though they are quite insulting. They are also quite revealing of your intelligence, self control and basic civility.
Greg I made my arguement liberals are tolerant until you disagree with them.
Seems you are the only one attacking on a personal level. I guess you can read your own words
Liberal does not necessarily mean leftist. Consult a dictionary.
As far as political labels , liberal certainly does mean leftist
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.
