Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on June 02, 2011, 05:14:45 pm
-
Not trying to start an argument here or anything, but I am fascinated at the term 'Liberal' and its multitude of uses across the globe.
Y'See, to my mind a Liberal is someone with a mixed set of left wing and right wing views, they might believe in the NHS, but think councils are a waste of money that need to be dragged in the modern era, as I do. One would be considered a left-wing opinion, the other a right-wing one. That, I tend to find, is the UK view of a Liberal.
It seems in America that 'Liberal' is used a lot more to evince 'extreme' views on certain issues, particularly evironmental ones such as Global Warming or, (the source of my curiosity) GM crops, but also turns up over things such as Law or Military actions.
I thought, rather than drag a thread off-topic, I'd ask people to define their own interpretation of a 'Liberal' from their perspective so I can just get a feel of how perceptions differ throughout the world.
Just to repeat, I'm not intent on having a go or poking fun at anyone, but there'll always be a part of me that feels vaguely annoyed at being bundled in with people who would commit vandalism and spout complete gibberish purely because I consider myself a Liberal, so maybe knowledge of the difference in interpretation would help everyone become aware that perceptions change with regards to that word depending on where you are.
-
Ah, so I'm not the only one irritated by this curious dichotomy between the US and UK view, though I've tended to stop worrying about it.
This is also reflected in their politics, where they consider the Democrats to be Left, but to us they're Centre-Right at best, and they consider their Republicans to be somewhere in the Right, whereas some of the policies and views they evince would make them FAR Right in the UK (but not Extreme Right.. yet)
So it seems that somewhere in this Amero-centric view of political systems, Liberal came to mean "Aggressive pinko-communist environut"
-
In portugal, if you accuse someone of being a "liberal", then we are speaking about someone that endorses free markets, the financial markets, is against nanny state in general, and is most of all concerned with the liberty of people.
No "liberals" exist in Portugal in politics, with the sole exception of the new president of the major party that is about to win the elections. But his liberalism is completely tamed by his own party.
-
I followed multiple courses about Liberalism, bought some 10 books on the subject (I still have to read the last one, though) and I write articles supporting it. I like the anti-politics aspects of it, because its main purpose is to promote control over politics and politicians.
-
Most people can't adequately distinguish between liberalism and Liberal. Liberal is a political affiliation which varies by country and culture. Liberalism is the ideological stance which evolved in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and favours freedom of the individual so long as no or minimal harm is consequently done to the collective.
The United States was founded on the principles of liberalism, and the ideology features prominently (though differently) in the rights afforded in the UK, France, the US, Canada, Australia, and several other democratic states.
The definition of Liberal (and connotative meaning) varies so widely by country that I'll be surprised if you see much, if any, cross-national agreement.
-
Liberal: A person who doesn't wish to uphold the established order of things just for the sake of it; the opposite of conservative.
Can also simply mean a person who is willing to accept change where a conservative would be more hesitant to change up things.
A liberal would be willing to change how things work, if they perceived the current order of business unsatisfactory.
Conservatism can be driven by devotion to ideology behind how things are perceived to be, OR it can simply be an aversion to change in general without ideological basis.
Former would be exemplified by people who, say, think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they perceive it against their religion or religion-derived ethics, or resist NHS because they think it's communist. In this case, their resistance to change is derived from changes being perceived as against their personal beliefs, ideology or code of conduct in general.
Latter type of conservatism would be exemplified by the Ents, ho hummm, or in general people set in their ways and hesistant to experiment with new things with issues that they perceive as working just fine as they are.
Note that liberals can be just as driven by their personal idologies and belief systems as conservatives; the only difference in this case is who happens to represent the current order of things.
Liberal-conservative axis pivots around change and people's readiness or willingess to approve of new things.
On the other hand:
Libertarians (see libertarianism) are the people who emphasize individual liberties as the most important thing to uphold in politics. Both liberals and conservatives can exhibit libertarian views.
By contrast, authoritarian politics would limit freedom and liberties in favour of a more... authoritarian regime, where the liberties and rights of individuals can be disregarded if the figures of authority deem it necessary (see USA PATRIOT act).
I have often seen political orientation represented as a plane with two axes: Horizontal axis representing the economical views (capitalism/socialism) and vertical axis representing authoritarian/liberal politics. In my opinion, however, the authoritarian/liberal comparison is incorrect, as the two are only related by proxy, since it just so happens that conservative politicians in the US tend to have more authoritarian view than liberal politicians (who often have libertarian views, but not always).
A better representation of the political gamut would be a three-dimensional space with economical axis, freedom axis and change axis.
On economical axis you would have capitalism and socialism; on societal axis you have authoritarian and libertarian politics, and on change axis you would have liberal and conservative politics.
There is some crosstalk between the axes, but the interactions between different axes are by no means clear-cut. For example, socialist views on economy require a degree of authoritarian beliefs.
On the other hand, the more extreme economical or societal political views one holds, the more conservative one is likely to be on a personal level: Stronger opinions are less likely to change.
So, I wouldn't necessarily relate conservatism and liberalism to any real politics since they are related to change, and typically conservatives are referred to as those who wouldn't like to change things from how they are; in different countries, these terms would have very different meanings. If you go and look at a conservative politician in let's say US, France, Finland and China, all these would likely be positioned somewhat differently on the economical and societal axes.
Instead, the conservative/liberal dichotomy should be used to describe personal attitude towards change and new ideals.
-
Liberalism is the idea that a government should uphold policies that allow each person to live up to their fullest potential. Liberal ideas include everything from communism to libertarianism.
It is not the opposite of conservative.
-
Liberalism is the idea that a government should uphold policies that allow each person to live up to their fullest potential. Liberal ideas include everything from communism to libertarianism.
It is not the opposite of conservative.
Nah, there might be an ideology or political direction called that, but that's not the definition of the word.
That's what this thread is about; to define the word "Liberal", either as an adjective or noun, so that there's less confusion about what it means.
Adjective
liberal (comparative more liberal, superlative most liberal)
(now rare except in phrases) Pertaining to those arts and sciences whose study was considered "worthy of a free man" (as opposed to servile, mechanical); worthy, befitting a gentleman.
He had a full education studying the liberal arts.
*Generous, bountiful.
He was liberal with his compliments.
*Generous in quantity, abundant.
Add a liberal sprinkling of salt.
*(obsolete) Unrestrained, licentious.
1599, William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, IV.1:
A ruffian / Who hath indeed most like a liberall villaine, / Confest the vile encounters they have had.
*Free from prejudice or narrow-mindedness; open-minded, open to new ideas, willing to depart from established opinions, conventions etc.; permissive.
Her parents had liberal ideas about child-rearing.
(politics) Open to political or social changes and reforms in favour of increased freedom or democracy.
Noun
liberal (plural liberals)
*One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty (see Wikipedia on Liberalism for a description of the various and diverging trends of liberalism).
*A supporter of any of the particular liberal parties.
*(US) One on the left-wing of the American political spectrum. Sometimes used pejoratively in political campaigns.
*(US, Also 'classical liberal', akin to libertarian) A person who favors individual voting rights, human and civil rights, individual gun rights, laissez-faire markets, and the gold standard.
-
In portugal, if you accuse someone of being a "liberal", then we are speaking about someone that endorses free markets, the financial markets, is against nanny state in general, and is most of all concerned with the liberty of people.
That's fascinating, because that's more or less how I'd expect the Republican party to describe itself in US politics. It's interesting how the entire political scale is shifted depending on the position you are looking from and who is defining the spectrum.
-
Liberalism is the idea that a government should uphold policies that allow each person to live up to their fullest potential. Liberal ideas include everything from communism to libertarianism.
It is not the opposite of conservative.
Nah, there might be an ideology or political direction called that, but that's not the definition of the word.
That's what this thread is about; to define the word "Liberal", either as an adjective or noun, so that there's less confusion about what it means.
That's exactly the definition of the word. A more general definition might exist, but as far as a world-wide, political science definition, that is it. Any time someone is talking about a liberal, they are talking about someone following that ideal, be it a left-wing, communist terrorist in Venezuela, an American liberal in New York, a Liberal Democrat in the UK, or a German liberal.
The down to earth ideas that spring off of that ideal are wide and varied.
Understanding Politics by Magetast is a pretty good source for these types of basic definitions.
-
Liberal : wants to change things.
Conservative : wants to keep things the way they were.
-
That's exactly the definition of the word. A more general definition might exist, but as far as a world-wide, political science definition, that is it. Any time someone is talking about a liberal, they are talking about someone following that ideal, be it a left-wing, communist terrorist in Venezuela, an American liberal in New York, a Liberal Democrat in the UK, or a German liberal.
The down to earth ideas that spring off of that ideal are wide and varied.
Understanding Politics by Magetast is a pretty good source for these types of basic definitions.
Liberal : wants to change things.
Conservative : wants to keep things the way they were.
Ironically, I think the odd one out from that group has to be the very one that uses the motif 'Liberal' in their name, since the Lib Dems in the UK don't really have much in the way of ideals, they famously broke a promise as one of the first acts of the joint Government, not that I'm stating that to be right or wrong, simply not very 'Libertarian'. That pretty much sums up the problem with UK politics at the moment, it's very homogenised, and the poles have flipped, the Conservaties are the party for fiddling with national institutions whilst Labour are the more conservative. It's no wonder people get really confused.
-
in 97 labour was very much a force for change, though as you say the conservatives did love to have a good meddle here and there, but in time as the function of government came more in line with the labour leaderships ideals they started a more or less maintain the status quo attitude, with exceptions in the DWP and where public outcry invoked a knee jerk reaction. This conservatism solidified itself under Brown who for what ever reasons didnt, possibly relating to an inability to comprehend the fact that the financial system was collapsing in its earlier stages, do very well as the financial markets collapsed, resulting in labours defeat in the last general election. I think what we are seeing now is the Conservatives are moving the workings of government more towards their line of thinking and once that happens they too will start to stagnate, possibly after the next general election resulting in their eventual defeat and the cycle starting again.
-
In portugal, if you accuse someone of being a "liberal", then we are speaking about someone that endorses free markets, the financial markets, is against nanny state in general, and is most of all concerned with the liberty of people.
That's fascinating, because that's more or less how I'd expect the Republican party to describe itself in US politics. It's interesting how the entire political scale is shifted depending on the position you are looking from and who is defining the spectrum.
ive always said that the american left is a little to the right of the worlds left. its amazing how many us presidents are in the top right quadrant of the 2d political compass.
ive alwayd defined librals as stinky communist hippies that hate rush limbaugh, buy organic food and try to save teh planet, while not wearing deoderant, not removing body hair, and ****ing like rabbits. i never really needed to define it more accurately than that. i havent gave a rats ass about politics much in the last 3 years.
-
It seems in America that 'Liberal' is used a lot more to evince 'extreme' views on certain issues, particularly evironmental ones such as Global Warming or, (the source of my curiosity) GM crops, but also turns up over things such as Law or Military actions.
You are apparently attempting to equate a Republican snarl word with an actual definition. The fact this causes problems is...predictable.
EDIT: More generally, this is why you cannot define a group by its enemies, which genuinely is the only commonality in the things you've set up.
-
yeah, conservatives use 'liberal' as an insult, and vice versa.
-
Conservatism can be driven by devotion to ideology behind how things are perceived to be, OR it can simply be an aversion to change in general without ideological basis.
So liberals are not "driven by ideology behind how things are perceived to be"? Do they bypass perception by possessing direct and unmediated contact with reality, or something? Is liberalism less of an ideology than the vague catch-all term "conservatism"?
Things are much more involved than that. This thread could go on for tens of pages of semantic debate without accomplishing anything.
Conservatism means different things in different countries and eras. Bobbau gave one common definition- conservatives want to "keep things the way they are". This isn't a complete description, however, because a lot of what's called conservatism today includes policy changes (privatize social security, invade third world oil producers, etc).
It gets especially confusing when you consider that there are at least two different and not entirely compatible strains of conservatism today. On one hand you have the right-libertarian position devoted to laissez-faire, on the other you have the more obscure "New Right" articulated around 1950 emphasizing inequality and a strong state. Then you have the whole shebang of social conservatism.
So it's complicated, and Herra is being quite general.
Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism. If you insist on establishing some dichotomy here it makes more sense to say that "conservative" is the opposite of "radical". And that still doesn't fit all self-described conservative groups under an umbrella.
Liberalism or the term "liberal" is a little easier to define; these movements pretty much branched off classical liberalism (which has existed since the middle ages) and places an especially high premium on "rights" of various kinds. An emphasis on rights and perhaps democracy is a distinguishing feature of liberal movements.
-
It seems in America that 'Liberal' is used a lot more to evince 'extreme' views on certain issues, particularly evironmental ones such as Global Warming or, (the source of my curiosity) GM crops, but also turns up over things such as Law or Military actions.
You are apparently attempting to equate a Republican snarl word with an actual definition. The fact this causes problems is...predictable.
EDIT: More generally, this is why you cannot define a group by its enemies, which genuinely is the only commonality in the things you've set up.
If it were only being used and recognised as a snarl word, that wouldn't really be a problem, in that respect it's quite easy to deal with, much like the term 'gay' can have different connotations depending on the mindset of the person saying it. The thing that interests me is the set of values applied to the word, more than any kind of implied insult behind it, it's that which, I think, causes the problems. If someone has a problem with liberals in their country, then it's important that we seperate the two viewpoints, otherwise there is a risk of confusing realistic concerns with an assumption that it's purely being used as an insult, and that can damage both sides of the argument.
-
If someone has a problem with liberals in their country, then it's important that we seperate the two viewpoints, otherwise there is a risk of confusing realistic concerns with an assumption that it's purely being used as an insult, and that can damage both sides of the argument.
I think you take Fox News and such drama too seriously. If anyone with an IQ above the single digits uses "liberal" as an insult they're obviously doing it in jest.
-
Quite possible, a lot of what the outside world knows of the US has been filtered through two biased sources, and when one of those filters is oriented to the Right, and the other half to the Left, what tends to come out is most likely gunge.
I suppose that's part of the reason that I started the whole thread, to find out what real opinions were, rather than the version we get projected at us via the media.
-
Well if you wanted to know what the average American thinks you weren't entirely off the mark. What you get on HLP is a relatively informed and intelligent small slice of the population. Self-congratulations aside, the Americans you meet here don't represent the average. A lot of people over here really do think that Hitler was a liberal and Obama is a Kenyan born socialist trying to kill your grandma.
-
Well if you wanted to know what the average American thinks you weren't entirely off the mark. What you get on HLP is a relatively informed and intelligent small slice of the population. Self-congratulations aside, the Americans you meet here don't represent the average. A lot of people over here really do think that Hitler was a liberal and Obama is a Kenyan born socialist trying to kill your grandma.
Yeah, didn't you know that liberals are all just America haters? ;)
-
I said keep things the way they were, a conservitive can be an agent for change if it is framed as a return to the good ole days.
-
Even so, I don't think that invading Iraq was framed as a return to the good ole days. And it's hard to honestly call the modern Republican party "conservative" when, as far as recent history is concerned, their economic program is pretty radical.