Why is liberal such a terrible word?

[777]

This is a serious question so please try to put some thought and logic behind your answers.

Based on a definition from American Heritage Dictionary the meaning of liberal is not such a horrible thing. I am curious as to how the word liberal ended up being such a dirty word. What is it that liberals promote and support in general terms that is bad for the country as a whole? Please don’t pick one particular individual to be an example liberals, such as Clinton. I would like to get a view of liberals as a group, something to the effect that “liberals in general support abortion”. When you write sweeping generalizations such as “liberals hate values” please explain how you came up with that conclusion.

Based on the same dictionary the conservatives tend to oppose change. For me that would imply maintaining status quo which does not necessarily equate that status quo is beneficial for the society. In today’s world societies must evolve to adjust to the ever changing environment, such as with technological advancements, woman’s position in the society, etc.

Obviously the meaning of liberal and conservative cannot be reduced to a few sentences in a dictionary. Both terms must be more complex. So, how do liberals and conservatives compare, be it in public education, gun control etc. How is any particular stand by each respective group god/bad for the society?



American Heritage Dictionary (just one of many possible definitions):

Liberal:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change

 

[rtwngAvngr]

These dictionary defintions are really not quite accurate. Liberalism used to mean the positive things above. Today, liberalism means refusing to see reality, appeasing mass murderers for fear of the political correctness police, opposition to values, socialism, AntiAmericanism, etc.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey 777, what did you think of that lie festival known as the Democratic Convention where Kerry and the other commies pretended to be patriotic?

 

[777]

Hey 777, what did you think of that lie festival known as the Democratic Convention where Kerry and the other commies pretended to be patriotic?

Can't say anything about it since I didn't see it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't you think it was a great opportunity for the party to show it's unity, vision and positive message? That John Kerry is a real hero.


Bush won Florida.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But back to the topic. Today's liberals are simpleminded intellectually fearful implementors of a suicide meme unleashed into america by the illuminati, basically.

 

[musicman]

Works for me.

 

[KarlMarx]

The people we characterize a "liberal" today don't fit the original definition.

I believe that in the past a "liberal" education included a study of western thought and the classics. The idea was that by doing so would give a person a broader education.

Now at least some "liberals" seem to be hell bent on erasing western values and culture. Many of those liberals even seem to think that Western Civilization is evil. Given that, I think the term "socialist" or "neo-Marxist" might be a better term.

 

[Annie]

But back to the topic. Today's liberals are simpleminded intellectually fearful implementors of a suicide meme unleashed into america by the illuminati, basically.

Beautifully said, after I ran for the dictionary!

The Democrats of the past had 'ideals' and ideas to back them up. Sometimes they'd get carried away, (see FDR and new programs), but the party leadership as a whole did have 'concern' for the people. (Mind you, I'm staying in 20th C).

Today the Democratic Party no longer has substance, it's all rhetoric. At the latest it began in the midst of Johnson's administration. There were good leaders still around, though by the time I was old enough to really pay attention, most of them were gone. (Thinking of Humphrey, Stevenson, Moynihan, Mansfield, etc.) Right now I can think of any leaders within the party that strike me as idealistic, maybe Breaux of LA?

The whole message seems to be, "Here's how the government can make your life bearable! We KNOW you're too stupid to figure it out yourself."

 

[DKSuddeth]

I am FAR from simple-minded and nowhere NEAR intellectually fearful. and yes, I am still a liberal. :finger:

 

[Annie]

I am FAR from simple-minded and nowhere NEAR intellectually fearful. and yes, I am still a liberal. :finger:

Dam DK, should have known better than to fall into that one! Then again, you are one of those that prove the rule, that liberal should mean 'progressive.'

(How's that?)

 

[DKSuddeth]

Dam DK, should have known better than to fall into that one! Then again, you are one of those that prove the rule, that liberal should mean 'progressive.'

(How's that?)

I can live with that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Beautifully said, after I ran for the dictionary!

The Democrats of the past had 'ideals' and ideas to back them up. Sometimes they'd get carried away, (see FDR and new programs), but the party leadership as a whole did have 'concern' for the people. (Mind you, I'm staying in 20th C).

Today the Democratic Party no longer has substance, it's all rhetoric. At the latest it began in the midst of Johnson's administration. There were good leaders still around, though by the time I was old enough to really pay attention, most of them were gone. (Thinking of Humphrey, Stevenson, Moynihan, Mansfield, etc.) Right now I can think of any leaders within the party that strike me as idealistic, maybe Breaux of LA?

The whole message seems to be, "Here's how the government can make your life bearable! We KNOW you're too stupid to figure it out yourself."

They're all senseless rhetoric, and now that it's almost election time, they're pretending they're pro america, and capitalism and apple pie. The truth is that apple pie gives Kerry the runs.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No You're Not!

 

[5stringJeff]

The dictionary definition of conservative and liberal does not fit the modern political usage. Classical liberalism (i.e. that of the 18th century) would be defined today as libertarian, laissez faire, or "small government conservatism." Today's liberalism falls more in line with the Progressive movement (there's another misnomer) and with elements of socialism.

 

[Comrade]

This is a serious question so please try to put some thought and logic behind your answers.

Based on a definition from American Heritage Dictionary the meaning of liberal is not such a horrible thing. I am curious as to how the word liberal ended up being such a dirty word. What is it that liberals promote and support in general terms that is bad for the country as a whole? Please don’t pick one particular individual to be an example liberals, such as Clinton. I would like to get a view of liberals as a group, something to the effect that “liberals in general support abortion”. When you write sweeping generalizations such as “liberals hate values” please explain how you came up with that conclusion.

Based on the same dictionary the conservatives tend to oppose change. For me that would imply maintaining status quo which does not necessarily equate that status quo is beneficial for the society. In today’s world societies must evolve to adjust to the ever changing environment, such as with technological advancements, woman’s position in the society, etc.

Obviously the meaning of liberal and conservative cannot be reduced to a few sentences in a dictionary. Both terms must be more complex. So, how do liberals and conservatives compare, be it in public education, gun control etc. How is any particular stand by each respective group god/bad for the society?



American Heritage Dictionary (just one of many possible definitions):

Liberal:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

My impression of the Liberals of today is that they indeed hold traditionanal set of beliefs (orthodoxy) that is based upon established views and dogmatic principles.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Progress in the eye of the beholder, that is. Intolerance for alternative dogma is a principle of both liberal and conservative ideals.

c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Liberals are most disconnected from the foundations of each democracy among those states than any other party of today.

Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change

[/Quote]

Although one would also expect conservatives to promote change towards their political policies.


I guess I'm saying, these definitions are outdated for explaining the left/right labels used today.

 

[Big D]

The ideas that liberals have are for the most part good ideas, the problems is that alot of these ideas discount the reality of human nature.

 

[Annie]

By the dictionary standard, I would hope I'm a 'liberal'. I believe I'm for progressive ideals, in the sense of truly untried, thus not proven to be failures.

Kind of a sad standard??

 

[Comrade]

By the dictionary standard, I would hope I'm a 'liberal'. I believe I'm for progressive ideals, in the sense of truly untried, thus not proven to be failures.

Kind of a sad standard??

Liberals still seem to claim anything "progressive" as part of their left agenda, and conservatives too easily let them get away with it.

Abortion on demand, for example, was a progressive policy once. Now it's not longer considered progress to kill a baby in the womb, just business as usual.

Equal civil rights were progressive once, and now affirmative action some say is even more progressive, although I'd consider balancing the scales progress if that's what we really set out to do in the first place. And yet that "regressive" to Liberals.

It's all just silly propaganda and word play.

Gay marriage rights don't exactly indicate progress to anyone but social liberals. Abortion restrictions are indeed progress to many while regressive to others, although the baby in question would enjoy life as progress and label death as failure.

I still think the greatest coup from Liberalism in the 60's, was to reserve this progressive.com domain name for their own use, and that conservatives let them get away with this label as if it's not like the term is meaningfull to left policy anymore.

 

[Annie]

Liberals still seem to reserve "progressive" attribution to their left agenda, and seem to continue abortion on demand, for example, as progressive policy. Equal civil rights were progressive while affirmative action of today is even more progressive.

It's all just silly propaganda. Gay marriage rights don't exactly indicate progress to anyone but social liberals. Abortion restrictions is progress to conservatives because the baby lives, but if baby dies, it's regression to the Liberals, away from progress.

I still think the greatest feat of Liberalism was to reserve this domain name for their own use and I still think conservatives suffer from this lack of clever foresight. It's time steal the nomenclature of progress back again, and refer to progressive law as anything which claims ground back from the far left and their often dangerous ideas about progress.

Personally, I think today's 'progressive' is probably of a practical libertarian bent-meaning me! I wish the Libertarians would find a candidate that would excite a large segment of the electorate! Not happening, sorry Travis.

It's nearly a given that those of a Libertarian bent will be pragmatists, thus voting for Bush, since the alternative is not acceptable. The Left wishes the Naderites would get this.

As Gopjeff posted earlier, I DO care, deeply, about 1st and 2nd amendment rights, but not at the expense of post 9/11 realities! Get a grip Travis!