Why do people equate "liberal" with "the left" these days?

So odd to me, since my notion of "liberal" was always George McGovern, Walter Mondale - you know, innately CENTRIST, pro-establishment, pro-capitalism.

Is it for lack of a true political left in this country that people keep confusing the two terms? How sad is it that an inherently MODERATE philosophy like modern liberalism is now considered to be "the left" in this country. It only shows how far to the ultra-right we've slid. And our right-wingers are called "Republican moderates", and our neo-nazis and fascists are called "conservatives".


There was a time when the progressives and socialists garnered 16% of the popular vote, such a powerful force that FDR was forced to incorporate many socialist ideas into his "New Deal" programs.

There is not a single elected politician in the Democratic party in the United States who would not be considered a moderate or a conservative in the democracies of Western Europe.

Conservatives have been successful in describing any liberal as leftist.

They've been doing it since the aforementioned FDR so they have lots of practice.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The Republicans have spent the last couple decades defining the debate. Thus, liberal has become a dirty word in the American Lexicon. It drives me crazy that so many people in our party - top down - continue to allow the Republicans to "define" us.

From every newsource.

I see people talking about liberals and ask them for an example, they generally throw Clinton at me. Prison growth, drug war, free trade agreements, police powers over individual rights, I'm not so sure that was a liberal. To me Jimmy Carter was more of a liberal, Clinton a centrist.

Yeah, loss of the left probably crippled the Dem party, and the political system in the country as a whole. We went, what, maybe three decades with nothing but right and center leading the nation? People don't even know what the left is these days, and to tell the truth before I ran across DU I wasn't so sure there was one anymore myself. If it's Clinton, I don't want anymore, though it's better than Bush I guess. If it's real progressive ideas we could use some. Lacking that lots who want some of the same freedoms are going to be looking at the libertarians and trying to fix them, which leaves them leaning conservative again.

We need some progressives out in front, offer some options at least.

Carter was quite conservative in comparison to Lyndon Johnson. He had more budget restraint than Reagan did, and he cut income and capital gains taxes (despite popular belief to the contrary. He was, however, a fairly poor leader, and his progressive ideas in the area of energy conservation and mideast peace work were not enough to redeem him from his legacy of failure in Iran and in dealing with runaway inflation.

To me, Clinton was more of a moderate republican. Only "centrist" in terms of falling in between liberals and conservatives (centrists and far right-wingers).

Keep in mind that my main thing is the drug war and prison growth, most things to me are seen in that light. Carter was for ending or modifying the drug war and actually was pushing legislation to do exactly that when one of his people got involved in a cocaine scandal and killed that idea. Sounds liberal to me.

Strong or weak has nothing to do with it, the ideas they want to work on does.

Clinton I'd agree on in old terms, but in todays world it seems anyone who isn't ultra-conservative is a liberal. I've always considered him more a moderate repub myself but it's hard to convince others that he doesn't represent the whole of the "left" sometimes. The media says the liberals love the Clinton's, so we must :eyes: Without an active alternative old meanings seem pretty well gone, we've adjusted based on what we're used to seeing.

I like Carter very much, but decisiveness was not his strong suit, and he had no idea of the importance of image in the age of television - cardigan sweaters and fireplaces? Come now.


As for Bill Clinton, I do love him, but not his ideology. I love him because he is a consummate politician, and an amazing smooth-talker, but stil genuinely likeable. Even when he's "finessing" the truth, he convinces himself that he's being completely truthful, and makes it believable to the listener. Hell, I liked Reagan in that way, even though he was the second worst president of my lifetime, after Dumbya. How could you not like Reagan?

I hate a lot of what Clinton did, but in spite of myself I find myself liking him when he talks, and he did do some good. We've had since the 70's to look at what we're doing with the drug war and he held just 8 years of that, I do resent that he didn't change it while he was there but he isn't responsible for it as such. Should have taken a look and told us where we really stood though instead of just playing the tough on crime card for votes. I wouldn't mind seeing him as Secretary General of the UN like an article I read recently suggested, he's certainly got the skills for it if he's learned to check results as he goes and make sure things actually work instead of just sound like a good idea.

Carter I've always thought just ended up in the wrong job. He'd have been a brilliant Ambassador, UN representative, or any number of other things, but he wasn't cut out to be President. Certainly smart enough but he didn't inspire the confidence needed to lead. I like him quite a bit, just not in the job he had.

Reagan on the other hand I like less and less as time goes on, the single thing I can credit him with is pulling the nation out of the funk we were in coming out of the 70's and the hostage crisis with Iran. Yeah, he made us feel good about ourselves again, but that was about it. Past that he set us on the road we're still on today and it didn't turn out to be a good one.

I think he had too much integrity. He wasn't a criminal, and he wasn't willing to sell our country out. He didn't play the game, so the power elite trashed him. I think he is actually an extremely strong person, not weak at all. It takes more guts than be imagined to stand up to that cabal. If we had stuck with him, our country probably would be much better off now.

Just my 2 cents, probably all it's worth too.

I think very highly of Carter. But leadership skills and integrity are 2 different things. Sending in choppers to rescue our people, then just throwing one's hands in the air when they crashed does not inspire confidence. He should have immediately sent in an even more overwhelming force to try and get them out, or started military action if need be. Americans hated feeling like we let the Iranians use us as doormats.

as Chomsky describes it. When centrism represents the left, there is no left -- at least not in terms of the public debate.

They have no meaning other than to insult to these bastards. That's why there's no difference. They don't really understand what they mean. It just gives them the same pleasure that it gives racists calling afro-americans the "n" word, or homophobes calling gays "fags" or the like. You're dealing with people becoming conditioned to not think, but just to strike out at people they fear/don't like/don't understand.

the freeps prefer "leftist" now.

at every opportunity, with some people as exceptions.

personally I think a pack of bush appeasers should not be allowed to call themselves liberals anyway.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
get your pics on shirts!

:shrug:

LBJ a liberal, snork! I almost hurt myself on that one! My goodness, I heard him spin in his grave!

by Faux, Rush, O'Lielly, etc.

I'm a libertarian leftist and i am sold out as language has betrayed me.

If i say libertarian on this board, i get a thousand knee jerk comments
that actually are complaints about "liberals", and when we use "liberal"
people think it means libertarian... probably because the first 5 letters
are the same.

But who is educated enough to know the difference, and that small few
persons is just "an opinion" as bush frames it, misinterpreting the
postmodern to betray the country to be permanently modern (which is the
same as permanently classic liberal).

And postmodernism, the evolution that is inseparable from culture and
life, is being stamped out by ignorance, and is left in a few temples
in and out the country, fewer and fewer in, back to modernism for
another crusade... a society of great myths == metanarratives.

If postmodernism is the death of the metanarrative, then it has happened
only in theory.