I'm not from the US (as you might have guessed!) and am a bit puzzled about the label 'Liberal'. It seems that some believe that all the evils of the world are the fault of these people.
I looked up the dictionary definition which is printed below.
1. [n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. [n] a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
3. [adj] tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. [adj] showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; a broad political stance; generous and broad sympathies; a liberal newspaper; olerant of his opponent's opinions
5. [adj] not literal; a loose interpretation of what she had been told; a free translation of the poem
6. [adj] given or giving freely; was a big tipper; he bounteous goodness of God; ountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a handsome allowance; Saturday's child is loving and giving; a liberal backer of the arts; a munificent gift; her fond and openhanded grandfather
7. [adj] having political or social views favoring reform and progress
Can someone tell me what is wrong with a person with the above characteristics?
Originally posted by ianpickeringI'm not from the US either, but this is the impression I get from the US media:
I'm not from the US (as you might have guessed!) and am a bit puzzled about the label 'Liberal'. It seems that some believe that all the evils of the world are the fault of these people.
I looked up the dictionary definition which is printed below.
1. [n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection ...[text shortened]... d progress
Can someone tell me what is wrong with a person with the above characteristics?
It is a bit confusing, as 'Liberal' means liberal in some areas and not in others. When an American conservative refers to 'Liberals' in a bad way, he/she usually means 'social liberals': people who believe that the government should not see itself as a guardian of personal (often Christian) morality, but should instead give people more freedom, eg relaxing controls on or allowing gay marriages, abortion, pornography, or certain drugs, and not making overtly Christian statements; also the government and police should be more restricted in what they can do to people, eg when dealing with suspected criminals and/or terrorists. The conservative position, on the other hand, is that the government must take a tougher line on these things, in order to protect society from crime, terrorism and moral decay.
Interestingly though, there are some areas, such as laws on guns and tobacco advertising, where the positions are the other way round; so it is usually the conservatives who favour liberal gun laws (in the non-American sense of liberal), arguing for personal liberty guaranteed by the constitution, and the 'Liberals' who want tighter government control, arguing for protection of society.
This is all quite different from 'economic liberalism': that the government should have less control over people's money by cutting taxes and cutting spending. Here it is the right-wingers who are more likely to be liberals (often called libertarians to distinguish them from social liberals) than the left-wingers, except for spending on defence and the police. Confusingly, those who want to raise taxes are in most contexts seen as 'Liberals'.
The trouble is both sides of the debate rarely seem to justify why individual freedoms are more important in some areas, and public health, safety and order (or equity in the case of some government spending) are more important in others. Instead much mudslinging goes on, with each side claiming the moral high ground and saying the other is poisoning American society.
Originally posted by AcolyteWell put, Acolyte...you are an astute student of American politics. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle...as I am..I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It's the extremes that cause problems. Example of out of control liberalism: the mayor of San Fransisco just authorized gay marriages against California law=anarchy. Example of out of control conservatism: disallowing a law that would prevent AK-47s from being sold to someone without a proper background check and a 7 day waiting period= idiocy
I'm not from the US either, but this is the impression I get from the US media:
It is a bit confusing, as 'Liberal' means liberal in some areas and not in others. When an American conservative refers to 'Liberals' in a bad way, he/she usually means 'social liberals': people who believe that the government should not see itself as a guardian of per ...[text shortened]... ith each side claiming the moral high ground and saying the other is poisoning American society.
Originally posted by chancremechanicYes, you had it quite right, Acolyte. This whole gay marriage thing is rather interesting though. I wouldn't quite equate it with anarchy though. Two old lesbians that have a piece of paper that makes them feel "official" ain't exactly the same as Iraq on a bad day. Well maybe if you're Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Well put, Acolyte...you are an astute student of American politics. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle...as I am..I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It's the extremes that cause problems. Example of out of control liberalism: the mayor of San Fransisco just authorized gay marriages against California law=anarchy. Exam ...[text shortened]... from being sold to someone without a proper background check and a 7 day waiting period= idiocy
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirksey, I wasn't equating two homosexuals marrying to anarchy; it was the fact that the mayor flaunted the law because HE had a whim to allow gays to marry unlawfully. It would be sort of akin to me smoking a marijuana cigarette in front of the police station because I felt like it and expected NO punishment...flaunting of the law=anarchy...however small it is could inevitably lead to a larger crisis involving unlawfulness...😉
Yes, you had it quite right, Acolyte. This whole gay marriage thing is rather interesting though. I wouldn't quite equate it with anarchy though. Two old lesbians that have a piece of paper that makes them feel "official" ain't exactly the same as Iraq on a bad day. Well maybe if you're Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Hardly any American will admit to being a liberal anymore. After LBJ's debacle in Vietnam and Carter's failed Iran rescue mission, they started to get a "loser" label, and poor showings by left-leaning presidential candidates (Mondale, Dukakis) made it worse.
I think Patton had it right when he said "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war [sic]. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."
That's why George Bush Sr. was so proud that America had kicked its "Vietnam Syndrome" by winning the Gulf War (there's an interesting piece on the topic here:
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/2003/mcmaster02.html ).
And it's a warning to George W that the Iraq situation needs to be brought under control if he wants to get re-elected.
To further confuse the issue, many left-leaning Americans now refer to themselves as "progressive."
flaunting of the law=anarchyA bit of a blanket assertion, I'd say. Much social progress has come about thru the wilful breaking of the law. The American war of independance against the brits was unlawful. Women wouldn't have the vote here without the (unlawful) actions of the sufferagetes. We got rid of of Thatcher's poll tax by a campaign of non-payment and some good old fashioned rioting. Going on strike is sometimes aganst the law. Sometimes breaking the law is necessary and good.
I find that many Americans, especially on the right, use the word 'liberal' almost as a term of abuse for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.