The term "liberal" had me confused for quite some time, especially since in Australia the Liberal Party is the right wing equivalent of the English Tories.
My confusion dissolved, a while ago, when I looked up the history of how it first developed in England and then later in America.
It turns out that there are separate strands of political and or moral liberalism.
A person can embrace one but not the other on logically consistent and sound premises.
Many people are left without being in the least morally liberal.
Many are ethically laissez-faire and abhor the left.
And yet a substantial proportion of liberals embrace both the leftist politics and various degrees of philosophical position on liberty.
The positions on how to best create freedom range from anarchy at one extreme to the proactive assertion of equal rights and non-discrimination at the opposite pole - with most people sitting somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
On aM, it seems to me that people often don't seem to realise that they are arguing at cross purposes because they haven't first stopped to check what each actually believes and means by the terms they use. They don't realise how or why they are misunderstanding each other, and so at times the posts dissolve into ad hominems.
If we define what we mean by the terms we use, we have a better chance of understanding each other in our conversations.
Will you be brave enough to share how it really is for you - what you think and the reasons why?
What does "liberal" really mean to you?
Jokes welcome.
Serious responses preferred.
If you want to change things, that's liberal. If you want things to stay the same, that's conservative. So after things change, you want them to stay the same. You change from liberal to conservative, but you have this political machine that you created and you can't change the name just because your attitudes changed. That is why political parties constantly swap sides and lots of people are unsure of exactly what a party stands for.
Since I live in the USA when I say liberal or conservative I mean what I think the American definitions are.
Sometimes I agree with one and sometimes I agree with the other and sometimes I agree with neither of them.
They're not really that easy to define because I don't know what makes them tick.
Some of what I think a liberal is:
Most important things to them are allowing abortion and banning gun ownership, uses catch phrases like social justice white privilege or male privilege, hates white working class or middle class people, favors Muslims atheists eastern religions but hates Christianity. Also thinks everybody in the rest of the world adores them.
Some of what I think a conservative is:
Most important things to them are allowing gun ownership and banning abortion, uses catch phrases like personal responsibility, hates poor people unless they're white trailer park residents, favors Christianity but tries to marry it with the parts of Judaism they like and then call it "Judeo-Christian", hates Muslims. Also thinks everybody in the military adores them.
Certainly. I know what the word means and I know how it is used politically here. While I do not agree that it is aptly used in American politics, because it is used in the way it is today, I distinguish that usage from what I consider the proper use of the term as applied to politics by using the term "classical liberal" to mean truly "liberal" ideology.
That may be true in the States.
But it certainly is not the case in Australia.
Perhaps two or three times at most, the left has stolen the right's policy on something or vice versa - although sometimes it has been something quite important, like immigration policy, and reflecting badly on both.
Other than that, our parties each stand for distinctly different and clear positions, including the minor ones.
Thank you, Livvie.
I have noticed quite a few Muggers using the terms liberal and conservative to refer to policies like the ones you list, although certainly not consistently so. It does sound like you might be in line with general consensus.
Have you ever looked up the policies of the various parties on-line? I wonder whether they would reveal surprises or confirmation.
I remember when RosieG looked them up she got quite a shock. She'd been voting one way all her life, and discovered she supported the policies of a different party.
Valid point.
So I guess you could read the meaning of the term used according to the context and the speaker. But it would depend on being clear, rather than making assumptions, about the speaker's opinions.
Since language is constantly in flux and individual words shift in meaning. That would make it all the more useful to add qualifiers like "classical" or "Democratic policy" or "moral libertarian," or perhaps find new words which more accurately describe an actual position.
Have you ever discovered that you've been talking at cross purposes, and had to back-track to define terms with each other?
I checked five dictionaries on "literally," and found agreement that the three original meanings are still in current use, but a fourth one has crept into common colloquial speech.
I agree with you that when someone uses a label to describe someone else they may often choose a word which has a specific connotation for them, showing approval or disapproval. Whether right or wrong in their assessment of the other person, their choice of words might be revealing something more specific about themselves.
I think what you what you're saying is that using labels is worse than useless because it is often misleading.
Although some labels are precise, which helps to be concise. They can create clarity and save time.
Maybe accurate labelling is difficult because many labels only approximate positions. For instance, it would be fair to say that there as many different kinds of feminism as there are feminists. The sole things they have in common are the desire for women to have equal rights and opportunities with men, and to be free from all forms of violence. So one can only know very approximately what a woman stands for when she makes this claim of herself. To understand her properly, one would have to ask her about every nuance of her views.
Personally, I value taking time to get to know people. I think there is no substitute for it. There could never be enough time to know everyone, so I have just the few close friends who choose me.
And it is a pleasure to meet you too, Some1UMayNo. :-)
That's actually very interesting jewels, I never thought of it that way. Fantastic piece of thinking. Did you come up with that yourself?
Ill be thinking about.that one for a while. Thank you!
I will have to admit that I have never looked into the definition of the word liberal. But I will. Good question!
Hello h:
Do I know what I mean when I use the word "liberal".. I surly do. Here's how. When I read the Constitution, I find a document that cherishes freedom for all. When conservatives read it, they find freedom for THEMSELVES, but NOT for others.. I have NO idea how they do that.
Here's a perfect example. Right here, on THIS website, this LIBERAL discussed the 5th Amendment in detail with conservatives.. In particular, we discussed what the founders meant when they used the word "person", as the one who is PROTECTED by the Constitution. Person, of course, is EVERYBODY.. Conservatives, on the other hand, argued till they were blue in the face, that the word "person" means US citizen, thereby LIMITING freedom for themselves, and themselves only..
excon
Hello JV:
When this great nation started, it was a work in progress.. It wasn't finished.. If you BELIEVE that, you're a liberal.. If you think it was FINISHED, and needed NOTHING else, then you're a conservative..
excon
Thank you. Most people preface their remarks with something like "You moron."
In the USA, at least, party members are drawn from a single pool of people, called voters. Let us suppose someone wants to start a new party. They make up their platform, which is some sort of written statement. Individual items in the platform are called planks. Then they start canvassing for members. Voters might say "Well, I like this plank but not that one. I wish you would modify your stance on that." So the party softens its stance to attract a few voters. This is a continuous process, and all parties have to do it all the time, and there is only the one group of voters, so eventually all parties have almost identical platforms. It reaches a point where they have to adopt colors to be sure everybody knows who is who. That is why campaigns involve Coca Cola red, Pepsi blue, and more recently a green party. (They have not chosen a soft drink yet.)
Labels can be very misleading and I try to look at people as individuals rather than as belonging to a group. A single label may encompass a broad range of beliefs, and the larger the group of people that label covers, the more diverse it is likely to be. Take Christianity, as an example, you have Catholics and Mormons and Pentacostals and Baptists and many, many others whose beliefs differ greatly. If you did a side-by-side comparison of the various beliefs of each, you would be unlikely to group them together at all. Yet many people make definitive assumptions about anyone who identifies as a Christian. In reality, probably few, if any, actually fit those assumptions that are made about them based upon that label.
This is true with labels of all types: religions, politics, ethnicities, gender, etc. Not all Christians want to legislate your sex life, not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all liberals hate Christians, not all conservatives hate the poor. Not all Canadians are nice, not all Irish are drunks. Not all women hate guns, not all men love football.
When it comes specifically to political labels, the meanings may vary greatly by country and this can cause misunderstandings in online forums. In American politics, there are many who are very partisan and tend to dismiss anyone in the "opposing camp". They lump all on the left together when there is actually a lot of difference of opinion there, and the same is true of those on the right. Nor is our country simply divided between left and right, more and more people, like myself, belong to no party and do not wholly agree with either the liberals or the conservatives.
Many refuse to listen to anyone sporting an opposing label, dismissing whatever they may have to say without actually considering what they said. As long as people refuse to actually discuss issues, the issues will never be resolved.
I agree with the tendency of any democratic system to push inevitably towards a centrist position - although where that centre sits is somewhat different in each nation and determined by dominant cultural values.
But at the same time a different push occurs - or it does over here.
Back in the '80's, our Greens party was invaded by ex-members of the socialists. They were politically astute manipulators and gained control of the party in NSW. Alerted, the other states acted to prevent any similar hijack. In NSW, the presence of the leftists has shifted the policies, so that only 4% of the planks are purely green and environmental, while only 42% of the remaining planks have a pro-environmental slant. Most of the policy governs human welfare in ways that run counter to the needs of the environment - for instance in architectural planning for housing for the homeless.
In reaction to this, many greens have been leaving the NSW party, disempowering it. They are now formulating new policies for a Deep Greens party with centrist fiscal policy but radically black-green in all matters affecting environment. They still support social justice, but in ways that do not allow harm to nature.
Although they will never get to power, they have the ability to attract many voters disaffected with the mainstream choices - up to 15% of the total vote. Sufficient to sway outcomes, and to win amendments to legislation. The result of this is that the main parties are forced to begin adopting greener policies. Insufficient to make the difference needed on the current scientific projections - but still better than nothing.
Thank you, Bozette,
:)
I think you've put the truth of it perfectly.
Now if as many Muggers as possible could actually read it,
perhaps we might start asking each other more about our respective values,
rather than jumping to conclusions with personal attacks upon one another.
I come from wanting to understand how and why people hold the views they do. I find ideas interesting even if I don't agree with them. But sometimes I learn something new that shifts my thinking. Always worthwhile.
But if people want to win others to their way of thinking, wouldn't it make sense to study exactly what the other's premises and values are?
So often it seems we think in terms of either/or, incompatible opposites, and yet often the best solutions are ones which meet all the needs through a third or variety of many options.
Strange how I feel such a comforting flood of relief when hear someone happy to claim liberal and intending it in the classical sense both politically and philosophically. I often enjoy your posts and suspect we share quite a few values in common.
Bozette has made some valid remarks about difference within broad groupings under some labels.
In nature, the longer a species has been around, the more it diversifies into specialised varieties.
Perhaps human ideas go through the same multiplication, but language lags behind. In the interim, before new terms are coined for clarification, we end up mired in misunderstandings.
That's good thinking there Vern. Ill think more on that. I truly appreciate the new ideas. Thank you.
What an amazing little huge idea there my dear A, that even in a platform of the green persuasion, there's still a extremist branch of it. The black green. I didn't even know about this concept until now. That it had a name.
Even the green people!!
At the end were all the same, we just carry different colors.
Great point!
As always.
The lefty-greens have been dubbed "watermelon" - green outside and pink or red on the inside. ;) True - thought you might find it amusing. :)
Thank you, Hartfire.
I think that if people would at least listen to others views, they might just find there are a few things upon which they can agree.
Personally, I have learned a lot from discussing things with those who hold opposing viewpoints. Sometimes I learn more about something when I go to find links to post to them. I have learned to at least consider their reasoning, even though I may never agree with them, I am left with a better understanding of who they are and where they are coming from. Also, on occasion, I have thought something said to me to be wrong, but when I went to find the proof of it to show them, I have found it was I who was mistaken.
