Are we really different? Thoughts on the Meaning of "Liberal"

Webster's defines liberal thusly:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.

1.
a. 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.

2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

I am deeply troubled recently by some of the extremism and intolerance I see on this board. In a thread yesterday, I read a post that stated:

"Freepers are vermin."

Try substituting "freeper" with jew, negro, mexican, southerner, northerner, irish, pakistani, muslim, afghani. iraqi, or even liberal, and then see how you feel about that statement.

Despite the efforts of some to make it so, the word "liberal" does not refer to someone who answers a certain way on a laundry list of issues. I see a lot of posts about how someone who supports the death penalty is not progressive or liberal, or someone who is not anti-war in every situation is not liberal, and so forth and so on.

Liberal is not a label that defines your views. Liberal is a label that defines how you came to them.

Read that definition above. What words stand out? Tolerance, maybe? Free from bigotry, perhaps?

Is calling a whole group of people vermin tolerant? Is it free from bigotry?

If we become so wrapped up in dualistic philosophy and concerns of what "side" everyone is on, we become exactly the same as those we are demonizing. If you assume that all members of the GOP are equivalent to Bush and his cabal or equivalent to Klan members, then you are no liberal. A hateful, bigoted bully who happens to agree with you about certain political issues is still a hateful, bigoted bully. The difference between liberal and conservative should be about the essence of the person, not whether or not they like the NRA or SUVs.

If you consider yourself a liberal, Try testing yourself. Try seeing if you really fit that definition above.

For the record: I do not own an SUV and consider them wasteful, I am against the death penalty and think the NRA is a dangerous lobby with too much power, just like the oil and pharmaceutical lobbies.

...in that you can't equate a 'FReeper' with a race of people or a specific geographical location.

- I consider myself an American before a 'liberal' or Democrat. Perhaps if we chucked the labels and just TALKED to each other...we wouldn't need to worry about being offensive?

Both very good points, Q

I said I was deeply troubled. I do not give thin damn if "freeper" is a geographical or ethnic group.

If you consider yourself an American first, then try substituting that in the quoted statement.

I am not talking about offense or being un-PC. I am talking about becoming so full of anger and hate that we become nothing more than the mirror image of that which we oppose.

"I am not talking about offense or being un-PC. I am talking about becoming so full of anger and hate that we become nothing more than the mirror image of that which we oppose."

What do we really want? To get this neo-conservative administration out of power and replace it with a government that helps the people? Or just to hate anything and everything "conservative"?

It isn't the same as you try and make it out to be. We have the right to feel that certain type of people are scum of the earth. It isn't the same as racial or geographical. Freepers are lower than vermin and so are child molesters.

"America" is just an idea. American should be your second label.

America is just a place, better than some, worse than others depending on your priorities.

To me, liberalism is much more important than national affiliation. Were it up to me, there would be only one nation on this planet.

I'm a Canadian and I hate when americans don't understand that. I'd be speaking Russian or German right now,if not for the USA. That is why what is happening in Washington scares us. When your big brother turns into BIG BROTHER when all the other Western democracies are getting more liberal,Amerika takes a hard turn right,Bush unites us in a backlash.

But I am American, and you do not get to tell me what America means.

If it is an "idea" to you, fine, but do not expect it to be the same thing to me.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to achieve a global government within our lifetimes, IMO, although we should try. The current mood seems to be the consolidation of superstates - the US, the EU, India, China - which will only form a global government if corporate attempts to juggle their way out of taxes by moving among superstates will force the governments to do so.

thanks.

It's too easy to fall into the Us vs. Them dualism and forget that many of Them are a lot like Us. We should label actions as wrong when they are but remember that people often commit good acts as well as bad ones. We oppose the GOP because we believe that that party does more harm than good but people who vote for a Republican don't generally do it in the hope he will do terrible things.

A lot of people here seem to be under the illusion that Repubs wake up every morning and ask themselves how they can screw someone over or destroy the planet. Most of them are just folks like all of us, trying to get by in life. Maybe some are misguided, maybe some just have different priorities, should they be reviled for that?

Excellent. Wonderful. Very well done. THnak you for puting it so nicely.

I think the deal with the "freepers" is the classic "in the group/out of the group" mentality. Like it's a bonding thing. So they are OK to denigrate.

I think people explore that with some of these other threads, as well. Maybe groups that they have had in their mind as "the outside", whether they be "Southerners/Northerners", "Atheists/Christians", "Gay/Straight", Anti-SUV/pro-Element, or whatever.

Some of the things matter in the political arena - some in diferent ways. For instance, "can enough people be convinced the death penalty is wrong to eliminate it", or "can enough people be convinced of the need for legislation to increase gas mileage", "to allow gays equal rights", or whatever.

It is interesting to see the discussions here in relation to the rest of the country/world.

How is it any different from denigrating a black person or an atheist? How is it different from someone denigrating a liberal? Denigrating their position is one thing, but calling them vermin goes far beyond that.

and yes - people should use restraint. Actually - while I think that any Democrat would be far better than any Republican - I think we like to lift ourselves up and put them down lower in the duality thing.

I'm not saying it's OK. I'm just observing. I also hope that some people here try to learn from what others say. Like that women really don't like negative generalizations of women even if the woman being talked about is a "Freeper" or Republican. Because it reflects on ones view of all women. Same with Southerners, etc.

I guess I'm thinking that people, if they are open-minded can learn something here. And that people should try to discuss civilly. But I don't think it means that certain things SHOULD NOT be discussed just because someone might get their ideas challenged. Or because someone might get offended. Religion, etc.

Actually, when people work at seeing the other side this place is really worthwhile.

Another reason I like this place is because "Freepers" can be so outrageous that I don't enjoy trying to discuss things with them. That's why we have moderators - so it doesn't get dang ridiculous.

Were you here when Strom Thurmond or Bob Hope died? Things said then were just as bad as anything I have ever read on Free Republic. Look at all of the crao being said about Shwarzeneggar (SP????). Saying he is a Nazi just because his father was one. Crowing about his extra-marital affairs even while we denigrate the Republicans for focusing on Clinton's affairs.

Look at this board objectively, and some days the only difference between Free Republic and DU are the names.

But consider these examples. I have never seen anything that comes close to the hatred expressed by these people.


____________________

From the Paul Wellstone Memorial

Im glad to see Terry McAuliff's new election strategy..Kill some democrats and garner the "sympathy vote"!!!!Thats the only way democrats are going to gain any seats this November. Doesnt Paul have a 14 year old surviving daughter I can go "comfort"?

___________

Read post #20!

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&board=37138455&tid=apbbnmetsclinton&sid=37138455&mid=27

(posted by cat_girl25)
_________________________

And I admit - these aren't from The Free Republic - maybe The Free Republic is not as bad as this.

As far as Shwarzeneggar (SP????) - well - I think that's appropriate since the Republicans insist that affairs are an issue... and I happen to think that his father's Nazi past did affect him. His Superhuman, Mr Universe deal. Maybe it's all for the good. Maybe not. It doesn't hurt to think about it.
_______________________

Start digging through threads here. Find any thread where someone of conservative bent has died, You'll find the hate. Look for any thread where someone is advocating a moderate viewpoint. You'll find the hate.

If we insist that Clinton's affairs should be a non-issue, then we cannot make Arnold's affairs an issue. To do so would be hypocrisy. The Republican views of marital infidelity are irrelevant to our own view.

I will not ever subscribe to the idea of visiting the sins of the father on the son. Arnold is not to blame for his father's political affiliation, any more, frankly, than Bush is to blame for his Grandfather's. I consider Bush a fascist because of what he is doing, not for what his Grandfather did. As for Arnold, I do not have enough info on his stance on issues to make a clear judgment about his politics. The fact that he will be running with an "R" next to his name is not enough information.

No offense - It sounds like you probably are not as convinced of the problems this country is facing as a result of the current adminstration that many here seem to be. If that is the case - I can see where you might think people are a little over the top here on DU.

I would gather that I see more reason here than you do - based on my perceptions of what is going on in this country.

Not that I think that people should insult the dead, but I can see why people bring up opinions contrary to the National Media when someone like Hope dies if the media is making him out to be a saint - and maybe it wouldn't hurt for people to be aware of his anti-liberalness. Things like that.

I get the feeling that maybe you would rather everyone was more moderate. Or at least that they let you be.

I stated in another thread that I do not think he would make a good governor (which is moot since I am not in Cali). I would not vote for him, largely because I see him as running on the basis of his celebrity status rather than any issues.

The fact that I won't call him a Nazi or make a big deal out of his marital infidelity is no indication I think he would be a good governor.

I lose sleep at night (literally) thinking about the direction this country is heading. I see the problems as endemic and mostly cultural, and wonder sometimes if this country can even BE saved. Extremism from any "side" is unhealthy and not the direction we should be going, be we are allowing the extremists to dictate our actions (and I am not just talking about the Bushies). I have bad days when I want to see this country split up and fall apart, in much the same way you shoot a rabid dog. You loved the dog, but you recognize that it is now a danger and has to be put down.

I am not moderate. I am further left than all but about 5 people I have read on this board. I simply recognize that very few others share my vies and so I try to steer a moderate course so that some progress can be made. I am not an all-or-nothing person in politics.

There is every reason to despise and fear these fascists. Read Lucianne or Free Republic. These rank and file "conservatives" (they are nothing of the sort) deserve contempt and even fear from any rational human being. You don't have to be a liberal to realize these people wish those who disagree with them actual physical harm. They've gone beyond the "America, love it or leave it" idiocy to a "Conservativism: embrace it or die" mentality.

I see threads linked from FR here all the time where I can read freepers saying how all liberals are violent and immoral. How is what you are saying any different?

'Freepers' are 'freepers' by choice. To denegrate someone who was born in a certain geographical location or under a certain religious/ethnic affiliation is different because they obviously had no choice in the matter. To some extent, 'freepers' may have been raised in an intolerant environment that helped create their ideology, but in the long run, ignorance is a choice, since there is plenty of information available with which to educate oneself with. It's normal to get frustrated with people and insult them. I'm guilty as charged. I have insulted conservatives, but stop myself when I realize I'm beginning to dehumanize them. Even in the case of Bush. That's where I think the line should be drawn. I give open-minded people more credit than that. People here may insult conservatives and 'freepers', but they also do a lot of thinking and thus are constantly in a state of check-and-balances. I don't have so much confidence in people who are easily led and more prone display intolerance and close-mindedness. I've heard the way alot of conservatives talk about the 'liberal', and it's really disturbing.

As for as differences: I work with a lady who is an avid Rush fan/Republican who loves Bush and thinks he's the greatest president of all time. However, after having many discussions with her, I've found that she is about as liberal as I am in most areas. She strongly believes in banning guns, wheres I don't. I think she adores Bush because she believes he is a 'godly' man, and you can't argue that point with people, because it has nothing to do with logic or proof. Her religious affiliation (Mormon) has a lot to do with this belief. Her husband is a conservative as well and disliked a movie I recommended to her because he thought it glorified communism ('Frida'). However, he is against sweatshops and even got upset with her the other day because she thought that if we just pulled out industry in some of these countries, it would hurt the people, even though she is against sweatshops. He was upset that she would even justify it. These people voted for Bush, and it's a damn shame. I should add that she is largely uninformed about world politics and history, other than the soundbites she picks up from Rush and Fox. Food for thought.

A lot of those freepers you talk about say that homosexuals should not be protected from discrimination because their lifestyle is a "choice". Granted, I think they are wrong, but is what you are saying really any different?

come to their positions by choice or not. That's something that would need another thread--and would include study of why liberals are liberal (if they are).

But I do think that what DUers are often responding to in frustration when they slap labels on is the behavior. "Freeping" means disrupting, attempting to get a rise out of people, distracting people from serious discourse. And the best thing to do is ignore them, in my opinion. I notice that, often, sincere newbies admit to having lurked for months and even longer before posting, getting a sense of the site, listening to what people are saying, then finally jumping in when they feel strongly or know more than most about a given topic. But "freepers" generally don't listen, they love to attack, and they try to press DUer's buttons. I'm not talking about their opinions (with which I generally strongly disagree), but their behavior, their tactics. And this behavior IS hateful, and hurtful. I have no problem with that being pointed out.

I agree with the original poster about how one tends to become one's enemy (in the area of tactics at least) when one lets oneself get drawn. I try to avoid attack threads--it's easy enough to do.

is if you take a view to the right of some folks on this board you are called a Freeper.

I have "learned" that you are a Freeper if you don't believe that Bush is going to cancel the 04 elections and impose martial law and if you believe that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was painful but necessary to end the war.

I personally do no think Hiroshima was necessary, but I certainly am not going to call you freeper just because you accept the nationalist BS about it (TOTALLY TEASING! ;) )

I sure as hell don't buy the bit about canceling the '04 election. There would be an actual violent revolution if he even tried. Even most freepers would not tolerate that.

...somewhere on GD's back pages I have a thread "Do you think I'm a freeper/wingnut/conservative disruptor?" where I have a list of crimes against DUmanity, such as, how dare I, thinking that the recall petition is the epitome of democracy, or, Hank help us all, liking Thomas Friedman.

I think it threatens to disenfranchise a lot of voters.

However, it is perfectly legal. I think a recall provision is a good idea in general, as it does allow the voices of the people to be heard outside the normal election cycle, but I dislike the California recall provision because it takes such a small number of signatures to get it going.

...you can argue that it disenfranchises voters who don't have enough time to prepare, but the recall may be postponed because of just that. However, a recall vote allows the voters to reconsider their support for the governor; even people who hate the governor rarely sign a recall petition unless they think they have a chance to kick him out, as they do here, given that Davis' approval rate is a whopping 22%.

And as for the number of signatures needed, it's not that small compared to the minute number of people who vote in gubernatorial races. All initiative/referendum/recall petition thresholds are calculated as a percentage of the number of votes for governor in the last election, so given the pathetic turnout the threshold is naturally pretty low.

is the epitome of democracy? When a few well financed fascists abuse the initiative process to attempt a re-do because they lost? Puh-leeeze. Davis has not been accused of malfeasance (I mean, malfeance, of course), crime, dereliction of duty or anything else that might justify a recall. This is the exact opposite of democracy.

...every 4 years.

Davis is in the governor's mansion in order to serve the people. If the people don't want him there, they should have the power to 86 him even before the fixed 4-year-terms.

I've never heard anyone here or anywhere else say Bush is going to cancel the 04 elections. It's so tiring to hear someone from the other side of the aisle expound on liberal thinking. It's always designed to demonize anyone who would dare question conservative policy. Don't tell me what I think. That's for me to tell you.

in medieval times, to not be considered liberal was shameful. I mean every man with power strove to have that word attached to his name. To be viewed as parsimonious in any way was severly frowned upon.

Just an FYI.

Julie

That is, the short list of people who're on my "read all of their GD threads because they're very insightful" list.

To me, liberalism is a philosophy - a political one, but still a philosophy, whose basic messages are, "the end of every ethical, social, or political system should be to make everyone's quality of life better," and "progress in terms of knowledge, society, and liberty satisfies the aforementioned end." It is not a side of a coin. It is not an alliance in a war. It is not a political party, even though some political parties are liberal. It is not even a direction on the political map; it is not entirely accurate to say somebody is "liberal on X, conservative on Y," because liberalism and conservatism are complete political philosophies, whereas the political directions are left and right.

That said, I think there is some battle between liberalism and conservatism - a battle of ideas, of opposing philosophies, of which side can support its argument better. It is a battle like the battle between various mechanisms of evolution 150 years ago, like the battle between Quantum mechanics and Relativity 80 years ago, and so on. It is not a war, not even a cold one. It is not a "war for our future," or a "war where we must make sacrifices" - not at all. It is an intellectual battle between theorists of opposing schools who try to better the others in finding arguments in support of their respective paradigms.

Needless to say, trashing people is far from liberal. The progressive strand of liberalism, i.e. the second proposition given in paragraph two, is divded into three parts: social change, intellectualism, and liberty, respectively. The second rule of intellectualism, which applies not only to liberalism but to the whole academic discource, including political theory, is "search for the truth rather than declare it" (the first is, "knowledge is an end in itself"). In other words, dissing Freepers, whcih is the height of claiming a truth, violates liberalism on its own behalf.

There's nothing liberal about sheepishly following other people, regardless of whether their name is George W. Bush, William Rivers Pitt, Rush Limbaugh, or Bev Harris. There's nothing liberal about screaming "It's us against them! It's the people against the Cabal!" There's nothing liberal about assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is sheepish, ignorant, greedy, or evil. Some people disagree with you or are even, Hank forbid, conservative, because they actually believe in what they say. One of the thing that disgust me the most about conservatism is the "us against them" formulation and the "we're in a war!" shouts that patriots scream as they ready their cadavers to charge into the fray at Bush's command. To that extent only, DU is exactly as bad as Bush is.

Thanks. :)

Unfortunately, because my threads are not usually "liberal fundamentalist" pep rallies, or pick-your-candidate love-or-hate-fests, they disappear off the front page kinda fast. :shrug:

...I've found out that the number of people who reply to my threads is inversely proportional to the amount of content. When I started a thread with a simply one-line question - "Do you support the elimination fo the Electoral College? I do" - it got over 200 responses. When I started a thread about a completely new form of government that should override the current checks-and-balances system, I got 8 replies, of which 5 were mine.

Unfortunately, because my threads are not usually "liberal fundamentalist" pep rallies, or pick-your-candidate love-or-hate-fests, they disappear off the front page kinda fast.

Oh that must be it! Surely!

How often do you indulge in this sort of self-flattery? I mean, how do you know this? Aren't you being a little elitist? If your posts don't draw lots of interest/replies, it is the fault of the simpleton posters, not your choice of topic or whatever?

Hmm. I will remember that. I am working on a book and if I ever get it published and it doesn't do well I can assure myself it is just too deep of a topic for the public and if they weren't morons it'd be #1. Oy!

Julie

I mean how do you know that is why your threads die? Perhaps it is lack of logic, or just a lack of pizazz in presenting a topic that is your foe. I am not saying it is, but you sound a little "sour grapes" to me. I have only started about 10 myself and they all died except 2. If I used your argument I could say they died because they were "too progressive."

I see that some posters are very good at phrasing an argument, and they keep it short and are provocative. Maybe that is what my posts lacked, or was it the zeitgeist of the day and they just were not interested?

If you crave a long kicked thread start a pop culture thread.

Not just of threads I have started, but of all threads.

Post something that you've thought a lot about, and want others to think about and have a healthy debate over, and it drops off the board like a paralyzed falcon.

But post a thread titled "Kerry/Dean/Kucinich/Sharpton/Bozo the Clown/Satan/Hulk Hogan/And a Partridge in a Pear Tree Are Going to Lose!!!" and the thing will live for weeks.

...it's because you're condescending and a bit self-righteous?

- Liberal fundamentalist pep rallies? Are you with the DLC? Why antagonize other 'lefties' with your stereotypes?

they have a terrible spokesman in Joe Lieberman.

Moderation is by deifintion boring and Joe Lieberman is boring so you have a boring spokesman espousing a philosophy that is by defintion boring.

I belive the best social program is a good job that pays good wages because it is from that that everything in life that is desirable is achievable- a nice home, a nice car, good education, a family however you define it, et cetera.

I believe efficient markets are the best deliver of goods and services and the government should get involved to deliver the services that markets can't efficiently.

Moves beyond humor into absurdity.

Oh, my aching sides. Are you having fun with us? That needs to be added to a lexicon of oxymorons.

Fundamentalism:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Liberalism:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Hence the quotes.

How else do you respond to someone telling you that you are not liberal because you disagree with them on a small point of their dogma (pick an issue, it can be anything from death penalty to drug war)?

The term is meant to express disgust that some people on this board have thrust liberalism through a dark mirror and turned it no different than conservatism.

It's like the right wing nuts who say Ahnold is no conservative because he thinks anyone has the right to f**k anyone they want to. Anyone who would say you are not of the political bent you say you are, based on a few disagreements, is an idiot.

I don't really understand the dark mirror reference. Did you mean perhaps, "through a glass, darkly"?

Just not using a direct quote :)

My guess is that since you would like to see the group you identify with (liberals) as the "good guys" - which is perfectly reasonable, by the way, you would like to sway people to being more like you would like them to be.

On another thread this was posted from a "freeper board":

Reply 30 - Posted by: boattail, 8/16/2003 9:53:48 AM

What I'm laughing at is the news media sure isn't spewing a bunch of garbage about the Dean Queen's son and his stealing problems who is a mess thanks to Dad .When President Bush's daughter sneeze they make a big darn deal out of it..Dean is a nut case but then the whole DemonRat Group are nut cases..scarey..Hitlery has to run now, she is so ugly if she waits until 08 she will look like those apricot people with a scrunched up face and bulging eyes,who would vote for her..Haven't seen an honest DemonRat yet..Gephardt is really the dirtest guy..Dean is just a Dope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=185870

_____________________

And though I may not have made myself clear with my ramblings, I agree with you. (Although I think there is the element of thinking of "liberal" as superior to "conservative".) I don't like it when "liberals" sound like creeps, either.

To not be dualizing - one would have to not consider oneself a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Rebublican (sometimes there are heated battles here ever that, as well - people being worried that someone else is Green - not Democrat). For years I considered myself an Independent. Perhaps partly for this reason - to avoid the duality thing.

_______________________

Actually, I think I see the current admistration as being over-the-top greedy. I think some of Bush supporters are greedy and some are simply clueless and misinformed.

I think from participating on this board I have gotten to thinking of Bush and Co. as EVIL, and that is probably too strong of a sentiment and does make me feel more like I want to separate myself from "the other side".

As I remember it, this was a pretty popular bit of leftist cynicism back then:

The fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the fascists.
The moderates will watch it on TV.
The liberals will cry over your grave and feel guilty about turning you in to the fascists.

Sadly enough, it was all too true back then.

"Fresno residents and community leaders, outraged by an e-mail message in which City Council Member Jerry Duncan wished he had a "dirty bomb" to kill every liberal in Fresno, called Thursday for his resignation, recall or reprimand."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=68113&mesg_id=68113

So he's an asshole. So what? Osama is a danger to the world, but that doesn't make me support Bush.

to make him do such a thing. We must be evil. The duality at work.

Excuses you (or me, or her, or that guy over there) behaving as badly as they do.

As defined by Websters:

Date: 14th century
6 of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;

with liberalism defined as:

Date: 1819
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

This means that though I claim the moniker liberal for myself, I distinguish myself from the authoritarian left by being a nigh-libertarian. Left and right, liberal and conservative, these words do have meaning but the truth of the matter is everyone is an individual and therefore different.

Show me a Democrat with a healthy scepticism of governmental authority and I'll show you a friend. Show me anyone, Democrat or Republican or Comminust who believes more in authority and order than in liberty and individualism and I'll show you a closet monarchist.

This is primarily why I do not identify strongly with the philosophy of Marx and Engels, I believe that in theory it lifts up the individual, but in practice it strengthens the power of the state. For a proof I offer the slang "refusenik" meant to refer to Jews who fled the Soviet Union but has come to mean anyone just wants to be left alone. True liberals would leave refuseniks alone. False liberals believe those obstinate refuseniks are gettting in the way of progress.

Anyone who believes that government should force progress along is in my mind the fathest thing from a liberal. Liberals believe in live and let lives. The authoritarian left or right believes feels these obstinate few get in the way of progress, and while nature will take its course there's nothing wrong with helping it on a little bit now is there?

This is why I get along with both Republicans and Democrats, and my social circles cross both. But I'm not really getting along with all Democrats and Republicans, am I? No, of course not. In reality, I am a fellow traveller with a subset of both, and I am opposed to a subset of both. There are Republicans and Democrats who still have some scepticism that realize government cannot fix everything and cannot be all things to all people, and at the same time there are those Republicans and Democrats who believe government, while is not all things to all people, it's close enough to get the job done if only those damned refuseniks woudn't object to everything it seems.

The answer is that the divide between Republicans and Democrats is in some ways less deep and more deep at the same time. I want to build bridges to those on the left who are cautious of authority. That is why I am here. The answer is someone on the left who is cautious and mistrustful of authority is a true liberal! False liberals dress up their supposed tolerance in pleasant words but if something gets in the way of what they believe is progress they are tolerant no longer!

I know that there are left anarchists among you who understand these words. It is not religion that is the enemy, it is not money that is the enemy, is it authority that is dangerous! Authority must be kept in check from any of those sources, including that of the government. George Washington and Mao Zedong may seem worlds apart, but they have one very important thing in common other than being the father of their nation: they correctly idenfitied what government is.

George Washington wrote: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Mao Zedong wrote: "Political power rows out of the barrel of a gun."

Is not the truth of what a liberal is contained in these two disparate quotations?

Governmental authority is always backed up with the threat for force.

It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

The liberal knows this and tries to keep it in check. Someone who is not a liberal embraces force, they embrace authority for authority's sake.

The truth is that many Democrats are not liberal. Few Republicans are either.

Main Entry: <1>lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b : archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 : obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b : capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>.


personally i like the thesaurus comparsions of liberal and conservative better

Entry Word: conservative
Function: noun
Text:
Synonyms: DIEHARD 1, bitter-ender, fundamentalist, old liner, right, rightist, right-winger, standpat, standpatter, tory

2
tending to resist or oppose change <took a very conservative stance politically>
Synonyms: die-hard, fogyish, old-line, orthodox, reactionary, right, tory, traditionalistic
Contrasted Words: modern, progressive, radical

and now "liberal"
Entry Word: liberal
Function: adjective
Text:
1
marked by generosity and openhandedness <a liberal allowance for his son>
Synonyms: bounteous, bountiful, free, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded, unsparing
Related Words: exuberant, lavish, prodigal, profuse; benevolent, charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic


2
Synonyms: PLENTIFUL, abundant, ample, bounteous, bountiful, copious, generous, plenteous, plenty
3
not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms <modern young people usually have a liberal attitude toward sex>
Synonyms: advanced, broad, broad-minded, progressive, radical, tolerant, wide
Related Words: forbearing, indulgent, lenient
Contrasted Words: rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent; dictatorial, doctrinaire, dogmatic, oracular; conservative, reactionary
Antonyms: authoritarian

but I agree completely with the disgust at the polarization and demonization going on here.

pass the test of any philosophy.

I tend to lean towards Locke's view on the subject. The word liberal has its roots in the word LIBERTY which is a derivative of TO FREE OR LIBERATE.

In order to free or liberate one must then define what freedom is in any given circumstance. For instance one may regard substance abuse as a victimless crime but if the abuser themselves is a victim of their own crime then one would wish to liberate them from the clutches of their chains ( as a matter of policy be clear that I mean cause them to become sober not lock them up)

As regards language, language creates confines as well. If one views through the prism of language INTENDED to demean or opress then one will reach a different conclusion than otherwise. An example of such would be sociological experiments in the 50's and 60's that led to sterility laws of the poor and criminal offenders. These programs were spearheaded by LIBERALS who felt there were making progress by cleaning out the gene pool. The language surrounding the poor and minorities made this possible. The conversation in which they existed was one that allowed for such policies that actually caused harm to them much like certain language now that imprisons, demeans or oppresses certain sects of society. It ultimately resulted in the social darwinism now embraced by the right.

One cannot come to terms unless on is willing to address the language in which a condition is allowed to occur.

Which takes us to the villification of FREEPERS and Republicans. They didn't invent the language, they merely imitated it since it spoke to a part of them that did not want to THINK about what they might really be saying. To that end, it became a function of backlash. But in reality backlash is not a BACKFIRE...a BACKFIRE will burn a fire out...backlash doesn't...it simply obscures the fine policy points that need to be addressed in a nation of nearly 400 million and a world of 6 billion.

"What, you don't tolerate my bigotry? Oh my, aren't you intolerant!"

Bigots do it all the time trying to be "clever". It got extremely :boring: quite a while ago...