I got to thinking the other day that the traditional definition of liberal means the opposite of authoritarian. However, we have the Modern day liberal, or as I call them statists, focusing on Big Brother intervening increasingly in our lives to solve our problems and the modern day conservatives crying "Foul!!" So have the tables turned? Is it now the modern day liberal legislating their morality via NHC and cap and trade etc., to force us to do, "the right thing"?
Originally posted by whodey I got to thinking the other day that the traditional definition of liberal means the opposite of authoritarian. However, we have the Modern day liberal, or as I call them statists, focusing on Big Brother intervening increasingly in our lives to solve our problems and the modern day conservatives crying "Foul!!" So have the tables turned? Is it now the mod ...[text shortened]... slating their morality via NHC and cap and trade etc., to force us to do, "the right thing"?
Liberal,conservative, right , left, up , down, it is all a bunch of sheep dip.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's because the US definition of "liberal" has been hijacked because of political reasons. Outside the US, liberals are often right wing.
Isn't it just that in US political discourse "liberal" usually means "social liberal", while in mainland Europe it generally means "economic liberal"?
Originally posted by Teinosuke Isn't it just that in US political discourse "liberal" usually means "social liberal", while in mainland Europe it generally means "economic liberal"?
I don't see many characteristics of social liberalism in the Democrat party. If you want to compare them to European parties, you would arrive at conservative liberal parties such as Labour, FDP, VVD, etc.
Originally posted by Teinosuke Isn't it just that in US political discourse "liberal" usually means "social liberal", while in mainland Europe it generally means "economic liberal"?
I'd say it's more an economic thing. Both parties have control freaks - the Democrats have the Gores, for instance - and social libertarians.
Originally posted by Teinosuke Isn't it just that in US political discourse "liberal" usually means "social liberal", while in mainland Europe it generally means "economic liberal"?
I suppose their continued support of abortion could define them as "liberal" socially, but what of gay marriage? In fact, I don't think even Obama favors gay marriage, does he? If so, I suppose you could point to those two issues and label them "liberals". However, what of the rest of their policies? In short, they are creating a police/nanny state usurping power over corporations and the populace at large.
To me, the ideas of legal abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs, free ownership of guns should be conservative ideas. They are idealized by the Libertarian party, which would normally be viewed by the media at least and the bought into by the American populace as conservative.
most of what is called "liberal" should be called "socialist".
most of what is called "conservative" should be called "liberal" (at least the "less govt" aspect of conservatism) - the term "libertarian" tries to do this.
most of what is called "moderate" should be called "conservative".
the problem is that the word socialism got all mixed up with Communist dictatorships, and now no one wants to use the word for anything.
the liberalism that was so cutting edge in the 18th century is now old-fashioned enough to count as being "conservative".
the true spirit of conservatism is the idea that things are pretty good the way they are and should be "conserved" -- if change must occur, it should be very gradual -- which is pretty much what makes up the "moderate" position.
Originally posted by badmoon To me, the ideas of legal abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs, free ownership of guns should be conservative ideas. They are idealized by the Libertarian party, which would normally be viewed by the media at least and the bought into by the American populace as conservative.
Not so if you feel the unborn are "human".
As for issue such as drug use and prostitution and for gambling, I favor not criminizing them, rather, I favor the state making "declarations" that these things are "bad". For example, instead of the state legaliing these things and actually making money off them, they should be seen for what they are which is high risk behavoir that ultimately has a negative impact on society. That way Big Brother is not in the mix except to be a moral compass for society at large.
a certain part of conservatism is what I would call "conservative socialism" -- favoring the use of a strong Big Gummint when it comes to things like national defense, crime, and certain "family values".
once you remove this, libertarianism (classical liberalism) is what remains.
Originally posted by whodey Not so if you feel the unborn are "human".
As for issue such as drug use and prostitution and for gambling, I favor not criminizing them, rather, I favor the state making "declarations" that these things are "bad". For example, instead of the state legaliing these things and actually making money off them, they should be seen for what they are which is h ...[text shortened]... That way Big Brother is not in the mix except to be a moral compass for society at large.
why would you want Big Brother (which is otherwise inept, corrupt, or misguided) to be a "moral compass"?
27 Sep '09 14:54
Modern Conservative = Liberal of old
Back to Top