Here's a flamefest: When did "liberal" become such a dirty word?

[niky]

I was watching an interview on BBC the other day, and a noted film director mentioned that liberal had become a dirty word.

It's something I've noticed here and on other boards. Whenever you happen to say something someone doesn't like, whether it be environmental, political or economic, you're branded as a "liberal". 👎 Hence ends all discussions, starts flame-fests, etcetera, etcetera...

Errh... what did I miss? When did the Cold War start again? Are people going to start throwing around the phrase "commie pinko" again? Discuss.

 

[Swift]

Basically, it's like this. Liberal = more gov't in all aspects of life. Conservative = more personal responsibility(not as much as Libertarians though )

But it's ironic since liberal comes from liberty and it is not associated with it in the slightest.

 

[Touring Mars]

As far as I can tell, the term 'liberal' has always been used as both a descriptive and as a derogatory term...

An episode of "The Goon Show" springs to mind, called 'Lurgi Strikes Britain' - written in 1954 (by Spike Milligan), an MP tells the House of Commons about a dreaded disease which threatens the nation, only to be met with cries of "Rubbish!" and "He's a Liberal!"...

Incidentally, this episode concerns a mass-panic about a ficticious disease, curable only by playing brass-band instruments. However, the rumours about the deadliness of the disease have been whipped up by a pair of bad guys who have just recently gone into the brass-band instrument making industry... sound familiar at all? 💡

 

[niky]

What's ironic is that anyone who says anything even remotely negative about the government is branded as a liberal.

And I've never gotten how liberal came to be associated with communism... left, right, who the hell wrote the book on that political continuum, anyway? Ultra-rightists are just as fascist as Ultra-leftists. They both trample civil liberties into the dirt in the name of "security" and "freedom" from imperialists/terrorists/etcetera.

It's a very big stumbling block in coming to terms with the geopolitical situation today. The moment the labels start flying, people cover their ears and start mudslinging. The only label worse than "liberal" is "dumb American", and that's also going around a lot.

EDIT: Are you talking about bird flu, perchance?

 

[Danoff]

If you think the word "liberal" is a dirtier word now than it used to be, it's only because the country ran away from liberals in the last few elections. When people think the US needs to be strong militarily they vote conservative. When people think the world is OK and the military isn't so important - they vote democrat. But "liberal" has always been used negatively - as has conservative (though that's started to change slightly as they've been winning).

But the difference between the parties is barely perceptible.

Foreign Policy:
The conservatives say "no timetables in Iraq - we'll get out when the job is done, and we must win". The liberals say "The conservatives should announce a time table in Iraq based on progress, and we must win." Only a few wacky liberals claim that we'll win the war if we leave.

Big difference.

Domestic Policy:
Conservatives:
- We must protect against terrorism.
- Spend spend spend
- Make abortion illegal
- Save the children
- Cut taxes

Liberals:
- We must protect against terrorism
- Spend spend spend
- Save the children
- Protect the environment
- Raise taxes

Woopeedo!! *twirls finger in air*

Sorry I just can't get excited about these parties.

Ok, on to your latest question.

And I've never gotten how liberal came to be associated with communism... left, right, who the hell wrote the book on that political continuum, anyway? Ultra-rightists are just as fascist as Ultra-leftists. They both trample civil liberties into the dirt in the name of "security" and "freedom" from imperialists/terrorists/etcetera.

This one is simple.... really simple.

Ok conservatives have historically been willing to champion your financial rights while trampling your civil rights. (ie: Tax cuts & corresponding cuts in social spending vs. no gay marriage, no abortion). The extreme version of this is kinda fascism - which is fairly dictatorial. One imagines semi-legal trade in fascist countries (at the whim of the guy in charge) but always stringent controls on social freedoms.

Liberals have typically been willing to champion your civil rights while trampling your financial ones. The extreme version of this is kinda communist - though it's more socialist than communist because presumably you have free speech and privacy and due process and all this lovely stuff.

Surely you can see how removal of civil liberties (conservatism) results in a seemily dictatorial system while the removal of financial rights results in a communist/socialist system.

But the truth of the matter is that both parties are totally willing to screw you on both fronts. Conservatives are just fine with pushing new entitlement programs and keeping older ones - after all, it wins them votes. The Bush era has proven that several times over. The liberals are also fine with trampling your civil rights as they mow down gun ownership, free speech (think racism), and promote discrimination within government (think affirmative action).

So both parties are inconsistent and worthless. They both do whatever they can to pander to as many people as possible in a power struggle faught simply for the sake of fighting it.

... I guess I was feeling cynical today.

 

[Duke]

So both parties are inconsistent and worthless. They both do whatever they can to pander to as many people as possible in a power struggle faught simply for the sake of fighting it.

... I guess I was feeling cynical today.

I've long maintained that Republicans (conservative) want to forbid anybody to do anything, while Democrats (liberal) want to force everybody to do everything.

Personally, I can't see a difference.

 

[Danoff]

I've long maintained that Republicans (conservative) want to forbid anybody to do anything, while Democrats (liberal) want to force everybody to do everything.

Personally, I can't see a difference.

I like that. It sums things up in a nice little package.

 

[Swift]

I've long maintained that Republicans (conservative) want to forbid anybody to do anything, while Democrats (liberal) want to force everybody to do everything.

Personally, I can't see a difference.

And libertarians maintain that everything is cool as long as we don't think it violates rights. Seems each party is on some kind of extreme.

 

[Danoff]

And libertarians maintain that everything is cool as long as we don't think it violates rights.

Why would it not be?

 

[Solid Fro]

Only Liberals complain about "Liberal" being a "dirty" word.

 

[Zardoz]

...So both parties are inconsistent and worthless. They both do whatever they can to pander to as many people as possible in a power struggle faught simply for the sake of fighting it...

I've long maintained that Republicans (conservative) want to forbid anybody to do anything, while Democrats (liberal) want to force everybody to do everything...

Eloquently put, gents.

How did we come to this? How did we get to such a sorry state?

 

[Jpec07]

Plain and simple:

When Massachusetts, a notoriously "liberal" state, legalized gay marriage. I'm not saying anything against homosexuals, nor am I implying that they are dirty, but according to fundamentalist Christians, homosexuality is bad. So, naturally, the first state to "commit sacriledge on the holy institution of marriage" by granting it to homosexuals would be considered a "dirty" state. Since it's a liberal state, the negative connotation was associated with the leanings of the state. That's what I think happened, anyway.

Don't you just love Massachusetts? (rhetorical question: no need to answer)

 

[Delirious]

Could the term 'democrat' also possibly be used as a derogatory term?

 

[Zardoz]

...Since it's a liberal state, the negative connotation was associated with the leanings of the state...

...and with the leanings of the Democratic Party.

I've always felt that the "tipping point", when millions of Americans moved to the right on the political spectrum and essentially turned U.S. politics into a one-party system, was when the Democratic Party came to be associated with the gay rights movement.

As long as this association is made, the Democrats will never regain their old status, no matter how badly the all-powerful Republicans botch things.

EDIT: Liberals (and Democrats) have pretty much been reduced to selling tee-shirts:

http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/?gclid=CKzgrN6A-IECFTRgDgodHhEPng

 

[Grand Prix]

In our neck of the woods a liberal is a centrist. Conservatives try to bring back the past, liberals are fine with the way things are now, and socialists want to bring about more change.

In the early days of Bristish Parliament the "Grits", or liberals, were more moderate than conservartives. So in that sense a liberal is a moderate. Which makes sense with Canada's Liberal party, who only seek moderate change.

Of course, in the United States anything to the left of conservative seems communist. American politics are dominated by a two-party system, both of which are fairly conservative compared to other countries. So it is understandable that even liberals, who seem tame to the rest of the world, seem revolutionary and dangerous to Americans. They even had to make up a new category of liberal politics to avoid scaring people; libertarianism.

 

[Danoff]

...and with the leanings of the Democratic Party.

I've always felt that the "tipping point", when millions of Americans moved to the right on the political spectrum and essentially turned U.S. politics into a one-party system, was when the Democratic Party came to be associated with the gay rights movement.

As long as this association is made, the Democrats will never regain their old status, no matter how badly the all-powerful Republicans botch things.

This is just poor analysis. How do you explain Clinton's 8 year term if this is the case?

 

[Danoff]

In our neck of the woods a liberal is a centrist. Conservatives try to bring back the past, liberals are fine with the way things are now, and socialists want to bring about more change.

In the early days of Bristish Parliament the "Grits", or liberals, were more moderate than conservartives. So in that sense a liberal is a moderate. Which makes sense with Canada's Liberal party, who only seek moderate change.

The terms liberal and conservative are defined as being with respect to the mainstream. So liberals cannot be centrist, or they aren't liberal.

Of course, in the United States anything to the left of conservative seems communist. American politics are dominated by a two-party system, both of which are fairly conservative compared to other countries. So it is understandable that even liberals, who seem tame to the rest of the world, seem revolutionary and dangerous to Americans. They even had to make up a new category of liberal politics to avoid scaring people; libertarianism.

Libertarians would be considered far more radical to most folks outside of the US than US conservatives. I think you may be misunderstanding libertarians (there's a thread on it if you're interested).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The idea that liberalism is about big government where conservatism is not is ridiculous. Conservatism promotes big government that acts in the interests of big business and the few, wealthy elite. Liberalism promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority.

Could the term 'democrat' also possibly be used as a derogatory term?

Only if the person using it is an "aristocrat"...

And libertarians maintain that everything is cool as long as we don't think it violates rights.

Why would it not be?

License.

 

[Danoff]

The idea that liberalism is about big government where conservatism is not is ridiculous. Conservatism promotes big government that acts in the interests of big business and the few, wealthy elite. Liberalism promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority.

Brian, this ^^ is preposterous.

You're obviously a liberal. To categorize the conservatives as "in the interests" of the few, and liberals as "in the interest" of the majority.

You were right that both parties are in favor of big government. But where you went wrong was that conservatives promote big government not in the business world (where they do the opposite), but in the social world. They invite the government to intervene with some of the civil rights of others. Liberalism is about inviting government to intervene with property of others. (classically speaking of course)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You're obviously a liberal. To categorize the conservatives as "in the interests" of the few, and liberals as "in the interest" of the majority.

You were right that both parties are in favor of big government. But where you went wrong was that conservatives promote big government not in the business world (where they do the opposite), but in the social world. They invite the government to intervene with some of the civil rights of others. Liberalism is about inviting government to intervene with property of others. (classically speaking of course)

No, classical liberalism is about government defending individual rights (and in the case of libertarianism soverign property rights).

Anyway, during the Enlightenment era, Liberalism emerged in opposition to the aristocracy. Capitalism was formed from this. Then during the 1800s, left-wing opposition to Liberalism emerged in the form of socialism/anarchism/communism. The right-wing opposition to classical liberalism and socialism/anarchism/communism emerged in the form of fascism.

 

[Danoff]

No, classical liberalism is about government defending individual rights (and in the case of libertarianism soverign property rights).

Well if you want to get REALLY classical on it... this is true. I was speaking more in a "past few decades" sense. Since it has changed a bit with the current administration.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Well if you want to get REALLY classical on it... this is true. I was speaking more in a "past few decades" sense.

💡 That makes sense now.

 

[Zardoz]

...How do you explain Clinton's 8 year term if this is the case?

Charisma. That indefinable personal quality overcomes everything, doesn't it? Look how great the Dems are doing with him out of the picture...

 

[Danoff]

Charisma. That indefinable personal quality overcomes everything, doesn't it? Look how great the Dems are doing with him out of the picture...

As long as this association is made, the Democrats will never regain their old status, no matter how badly the all-powerful Republicans botch things.

These two strike me as inconsistent.

 

[Zardoz]

These two strike me as inconsistent.

Clinton's phenomenal personal charisma swung more voters towards the Dems than the negative association with gay rights swung people away from them.

With Bad Billy retired, they have no "star", and they're becoming more irrelevent with each passing day.

 

[Swift]

Clinton's phenomenal personal charisma swung more voters towards the Dems than the negative association with gay rights swung people away from them.

With Bad Billy retired, they have no "star", and they're becoming more irrelevent with each passing day.

Can't argue with that. Infact, that's the ONLY thing that got him elected twice. Bob dole was a total wuss, but he had a small fight with Bush.

It's scary how something that has nothing to do with being president can get you into the white house...oh well. Such is the system.

 

[James2097]

The "Australian Liberal Party" are the conservative (nothing to do with jam) party here.
Funny hey? Shows how much the American right wing have bent and contorted that word with their own brand of craziness.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The "Australian Liberal Party" are the conservative (nothing to do with jam) party here.
Funny hey? Shows how much the American right wing have bent and contorted that word with their own brand of craziness.

Actually, the Australian Liberal Party is using the term "liberal" in its classical sense.

 

[ledhed]

I have always had liberal views on most social issues but have never fit the " liberal " ideal or the " liberal ' wing of the Democratic party . I have been either a conservative Democrat or a modedrate Republican...if we need to use labels... When I think of" liberals "
I think of a bunch of assmunches that think they know whats good for me and everyone else and are willing to spend every cent I have to prove it . conservatives of the " bible thumping turn back the clock to the fifties " type are also not on my radar ....honestly ..they all bite ....I must be feeling cranky today .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think of a bunch of assmunches that think they know whats good for me and everyone else and are willing to spend every cent I have to prove it .

How's is that any different from the Republican party? They're spending your money to pay for wars and tax cuts!

And they still act like they know what's good for you...

"Privatizing social security is the CURE, everybody!" ... think of the amount tax money they spent putting out infomercials and sound bites just for that!



Anyway... here's an interesting article:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm