What is liberalism?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular, I wanted to point out that conservatives in the United States are constantly attacking liberals without really understanding what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The right's use of the word 'liberal' is more or less synonymous with "person/people/thing/idea I don't like" -- or even more bluntly, 'liberal' = 'not right-wing'.

My guess is, if you asked the average right-winger to define 'liberal', they'd just say things like: "hippie", "pussy", "tree-hugger", "PC police officer", "bleeding heart", "likes welfare", "hates old white men & the American heartland", "anti-Christian", "permissive morals", "baby killer" -- or whatever such ways the right throws out liberal to describe things they don't like.

So I think the right constantly attacks 'liberals' because they've so (successfully!) framed the word that, to your average right-winger (and in many ways to your average voter), it now instantly cues up images/words like "pussy", "bleeding heart", etc -- much to the benefit of the right/its candidates, who no longer need to detail specific policy differences/grievances with their Democratic/moderate Republican opponents; just slap their opponent's face in an ad and say 'liberal' as many times as possible in 60 seconds and -- viola!, you've created a successful campaign ad for a right-wing candidate.

So I don't think it's quite correct to say that the right 'doesn't understand what liberal means'. As I said, I think the right has so successfully framed the word ‘liberal’ that its common usage is now (at least for many in the US) more or less the same as the pejorative synonyms the right so skillfully managed to link it to over the last 30 years.

In other words, the right so adroitly perverted the meaning of the word that its 'classical' definition is now clearly differentiated from its 'contemporary' one.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Your answer is pretty good aside from the application of the crude modern politcal spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I guess.

The uni-dimensional spectrum is obviously not an accurate representation but is a useful heuristic model when talking about these differences historically, since the role of the state in the capitalist economy has been the divisive issue from the late 19th century onward and can be represented in a compelling way on one dimension. It is also obviously the ordinary language model that is generally invoked in politics.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in order to know what liberals, as the word is used now, actually are, then you should know the history of liberalism and how it evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contemporary liberalism is less related to "classical" liberalism than is contemporary conservatism.

[lehighguy]

I'm not advocating a specific approach, nor saying this applies in all cases, just trying to give a general overview that you requested.

I would say your response is perhaps simplistic. When I refer to a idealogical base, I mean that there are rules and principles that govern how you approach a problem. For instance, mathematical rules govern math. One of those rules might be addition, and by using it you are able to figure out 2 + 2 = 4. Since you understand addition you can apply it to new situations, like 2 + 1 = 3. Things like "all men are created equal" are like the addition of political idealogy.

If you don't have a base set of principles, you can make addition do whatever you want. You can make 2 + 2 = 5, and 2 + 1 = 5. However, you quickly find that they can't both be five, and this is where the problem by problem approach often breaks down. It's the political equivilant of implementing farm subsidies to save farm jobs then complaining about tech outsourcing because everyone in India had to close down thier farm and move to the city and learn about computers.

Sometimes your basic principles are wrong or are you misapplying them. For instance, in high level mathematics you realize that there are wacko cases where 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. However, as long as those principles remain adaptive they can still be used in the majority of cases. An overall working framework helps you keep uniform policy accross problems so you don't trip over yourself. Or as my old math professor would say, "simplicity is elegence".

Benefits of adaptive policy principles:
1) Uniform
2) Transparant
3) Simple
4) Usually more vetted because they have been around longer

If we want to get into your question, or how I handle political problems myself, this requires a great deal more writing.

[Andrew Fletcher]

I agree, but I think most American "liberals" don't really understand liberalism and that's a big part of the problem.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think in order to know what liberals, as the word is used now, actually are, then you should know the history of liberalism and how it evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contemporary liberalism is less related to "classical" liberalism than is contemporary conservatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is right; I think I said that in my reply. In the economic sense, the Republicans are more classically liberal, and the Democrats are modern liberals. It is switched when it comes to the social spectrum. What I said was that contemporary liberalism, in the United States, is an evolution of the classical liberalism model that came from Locke and Smith .

In fact, it may have been good to show this example in the Conservatism post that was put up a week ago, so my point would have been clearer. I said that Conservatives are set in the past (regressive), and Liberals believe in change (progressive), and this may be a good example of that. The Republicans are into OLD style liberalism, hence, they can be considered less progressive than Democrats on certain issues since Democrats are more into Modern Liberalism.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I think most American "liberals" don't really understand liberalism and that's a big part of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be true.

But is at least equally true that most people in America don't understand that the "liberalism" of the Democratic party is a very centrist ideology and that American politics is really about a conflict between the right and the center. An electorally strong "left" has never really existed in America.

That is the cat that the Republican party really doesn't want out of the bag. Who wants to be seen as engaging in an ideological battle against "the center?" Luckily for the GOP, the American populace has trouble enough finding Europe on a map, much less understanding the historical distinctions between socialism, social democracy, modern liberalism, and new and old conservatism.