I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?

In general, in the US at least, liberalism just means an ideology that draws more on socialist concepts, at least in theory. (See: FDR with Medicare, TVA, WPA, Social Security, etc)

So, basically you're talking about Democratic Party, right?

Because liberalism is also seen as progress. It is visable in the political system in Belgium. The liberal party here is known as a progressive party while the christians are conservatives. I don't think it is usable in the American system as there are only 2 big parties.

It may just be a terminology problem. Being "liberal" doesn't mean "supporting freedom in every case." Political terms are not to be taken literally, I think.

Actually, that's called libertarianism if I remember correctly.

Yeah, I think you're right. I was just pointing out to mention that the term "liberal" is not to be taken literally.

So, from what I've seen so far there is not common consensus as to the people who are considered liberals. That only confuses me more

Liberalism is a love for the gray area in between everything. Sometimes there are good things in the gray area, other times, its bland and motivationally void.

A big reason most conservative / nationalist American's would call the current trends in liberalism here in the US leftist is because of the strong push (politically) towards progressive reform of a lot of conservative, capitalist ideals and systems, with a great deal of socialist / humanitarian intent that would other wise surely fall outside the breadth of normal capitalist political ideals.

Yup, in US politics liberal is shorthand for Democrat and conservative shorthand for Republican although neither party are actually liberal or conservative in the general sense of the words. Lately "liberal" has taken on a negative connotation (more or less meaning "pussies") and the right uses it to bash the democrats, who in turn now call republicans "neo-cons" (for neo-conservative), which basically is synonymous with "fascists" .

At one point in history the democrats did actually support liberal ideas (what would now be called Libertarian), but have recently become as capitalist as republicans. Usually 'capital L' Liberal is used to mean Libertarian, or supportive of civil rights, while 'small l' liberal denotes democrat.

the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been turned into slurs devoid of real meaning.

Liberalism (in the classical sense) is basically libertarianism. This term, however, have been usurped by the Left to basically mean socialism.

That's a funny tale. You see, back in the fifties, during the red scare, socialists didn't want to tell the world what they were. They were going to be monitored, discriminated, and possibly even jailed simply for being socialists. So they took a good, warm, friendly term - liberal - and adopted it. Liberal formerly had two denotations: that being what is usually now identified as libertarian, and an ideal of wanting to bring change. They embrace the latter portion, but they altogether curb the first. That's the story of the hijacking of the term "liberal", and why (excuse me) I tell people that I am not a libertarian, but, in fact, a liberal (though in the classic sense, not the modern definition).



Indeed, but libertarianism is what liberalism formerly was.



Understand that statist capitalism does not equate to true capitalism. With the state, capitalism is inherently socialistic, and most/all capitalist states gravitate toward some degree of socialism in their lives. This is most prominent in Europe, but is noticeable in the US as well. It's not because capitalism doesn't work so much as the power hungry powers-that-be.



That's correct so far as I know.

In America, the term 'liberalism' is used to refer to the big government welfare state, whereas in parts of Europe it is used to refer to classical liberalism. In the US, classical liberalism is known primarily as libertarianism.

The chairman of the German liberal party "FDP" is gay, now if THAT isn't liberal....

In my view, Liberalism and Conservatism as coined in the US are equally oppressive and controlling, one socially, one fiscally. Liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. Quite the contrary in fact.

Liberalism, to me, is a political philosophy that favors individual freedom above everything else, including culture, heritage, ethnicity, nationality, tradition, etc. Most modern liberals are proud to think of themselves in this way. They favor individualism and materialism, and are militant in their desire to exclude all who oppose their worldview. Ironically, the political supression of speech and freedom of expression - unparalleled in its current extremity - is the result of the efforts of modern 'progressivists'.

As far as I'm concerned, Huxley's Brave New World is a good read for anyone who wants to understand modern liberalism.

Liberalism means different things in different countries. That's all you need to know.

There's a difference when applied to different fields, politics and economics for example. A liberal/libertarian in economics would espouse free trade, minimal government intervention, no welfare state, laissez faire etc, ie 'right wing' policies (Adam Smith). A liberal/libertarian in politics would similarly espouse limited government intervention (Bentham, Mill) in private life. A political libertarian would see the state's only function as providing an army and a police force for security and stability, to counter crimes committed against others. Personal morality is what it is, personal, and the force of consent and personal choice is paramount. This is essentially a very left wing view. The US "Republicans" therefore want less governmental intervention in business and trade but more intervention in questions of morality and personal freedoms. Vice versa for the "Democrats". Ironically, back in the day, republic = democracy.

Posters are right in that left wing/right wing jockeying for positions have degraded and changed the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative", it's a just nice convenient stick to beat each other with.

Can you tell me how one logically follows on from the other? I agree that liberalism favours individual freedom and personal choice. I emphasise "individual". Most liberals are vehemently against anything that curtails the individual expression of one's own desires, be it drugs, abortion, pornography or homosexuality. How is that a "desire to exclude all who oppose their worldview"?

I think you fundamentally confuse liberals with the bleeding heart lefties who are all PC, and suck up to religions and cultures who are different in the interests of multiculturalism. True liberals would not suppress free speech and free expression.

Your last statement represents the arguement that is occurring here: Currently there is not a central definition of the word liberal, it can be applied to many thoughts or ideals. Therefore, how can one identify themselves with being a "true" liberal.

Since we can't argue the definition of liberalism since it is indefinite, and since the original poster seems a bit rattled about the American system of politics, I'll give a little lesson here.

In America, there are several major parties. Two biggest are the Democrats and Republicans. Then there's a couple of famous "subsystems" of beliefs within a party: liberal and conservative. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a liberal Republican, but there are liberal and conservative Democrats. If any American feels a need to correct me, go ahead. I only live across the Canada/US border, so I could be wrong...

That's all

I think what is happening here is a question of a merely verbal dispute. Classical Liberalism (or what was originally called Liberalism) espoused economic freedomalong with social freedom, but very rarely did the Liberal philosophers support these stances unconditionally, rather that they met some further precondition (such as furthering the common good). Hence it is perfectly acceptable for the word Liberal to have evolved into its current American (and also to a certain extent European) meaning, as modern Liberals no longer see complete free trade and perhaps even absolute social freedom as always the best thing for the common good. Those that continue to endorse Classical Liberal views today are better off referring to themselves as Libertarians. There is still a big difference between modern Liberalism and Socialism however, the former usually supporting a mixed economy of sorts and at least some respect for individualism whereas Socialism favours a government planned economy and Collectivism.

Those kinds of slogans are often used by libertarians, but supporting freedom in *every* case would in practice be a type of lawless individualist anarchism, which few (if anyone) who calls themselves libertarians actually support.

Conservatives have demonized liberalism in the US, whereof anyone left of them have extreme socialist proclivities, although quite contrary actually...

American liberalism (libertarianism, etc) is much more hand in hand with the right than the left. Their emphasis seems to be on the continuation of status quo capitalism, a further propagation of globalism, "limited government" which is always a euphemism for bureaucracy, etc. This is certainly akin to the American right, where rhetoric and campaign dictum is never actually fulfilled.

You said it: they're vehemently against anything that curtail's personal desire. You don't find this perspective myopic? Any form of nationalism, for example, is necessarily excluded because it favors the collective before the individual.

Also, liberals are against pornography, drugs, and homosexuality? You and I must be talking about different liberals.



What?! Liberals have a chokehold on the academic world. They are ruthless. To express an opinion - even a scientific theory - that contradicts the multicultural worldview is professional suicide for an academic. Examples abound. And it's not just for academics, let me tell you. The 'truer' they are, the more inhibiting they become.

A case of bad sentence parsing: He said they are against anything that curtails the individual expression of one's desires, [now follow examples of such desires:] namely drugs, abortion etc., i.e. they are against anything that curtails drugs, abortion...
You understood him as meaning: against anything ..., among such things being: drugs, abortion etc.


Show them. Let's have some proof. Talk is cheap.

Edited for typo.

Campaign rhetoric is never fulfilled by anyone. Our feeble society precludes it. Any idea that enters the public sphere must be immediately ameliorating to the masses. Furthermore, where is this American right? Let me know, I'll be the first to sign up. Ever since the 1960's, when the 'Guilt Movement' really took hold, conservatism has meant little more than going to church and breeding. Both Democrats and Republicans support any strategy that makes a quick buck. What was once considered stable and traditional is now decried as patriarchal and bigoted. Meanwhile, we have a million and one problems that the progressive agenda has shouldered us with.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that.

About the examples, give me a minute to dig them up. I've got a couple in mind.

Too true. The alleged democracy we bestow is taken as bona-fide democracy, no questions asked, by the American consensus. My point is, every political philosophy is taken hostage by American doctrinaires, consequently perverted to such an extent, and in return sold as orthodoxy to the populace. When it reality, no integrity or fidelity is preserved.

Communism is Stalinism
Socialism is autocracy
Democracy is a government ruled by a privileged oligarchy

Etc...

This is precisely why I am an anarchist.

http://www.nigerianmuse.com/spotlight/R ... eer_Watson

And why is nationalism automatically desirable? I don't even see how that's relevant in the context of this argument.

All I'm saying is that you're not appreciating the debate here. I'm arguing, as this thread is arguing, that there is a distinction between true/classical liberalism/libertarianism and the current dichotomy of liberal/conservative. I'm drawing you up on your statement that political suppression of speech and freedom of expression is linked with liberalism (in your own words, "as a political philosophy"), which it blatantly is not. The basis of liberalism is freedom, in speech, in trade, in the welfare state, in political choice, almost everything.

Yes it's myopic to a certain extent, but liberalism attempts to justify why there should be less intervention by the state in the individual's private life. Collectivism implies an overly enthusiastic intervention in my personal rights, including using criminal sanctions to back these up. Liberalism starts with the assumption that the individual is in the best position to know what his interests and wants and desires are, and it takes a very good reason for the state to intervene.

And now we come to degrees of liberalism and paternalism, which I took for granted you appreciated, seeing as there is no true system of liberalism or conservatism practised anywhere in the world. A good reason is the harm principle - where what you're doing infringes unjustifiably on the rights of another. For example, even though I felt like murdering you, a liberal would say that the state would be justified in stepping in and criminalising murder, because what I'm doing is infringing on your right to life. Ditto for theft, child molestation, etc. So either you're misrepresenting liberalism (unforgivably IMO) or you don't appreciate the subtleties involved.



As someone below said, examples. Also, like I said, a liberal would never demand suppression of free speech. Sure, they may criticise the hell out of it, but never to deny them the right to express their views.

Hell, I think you're confusing a liberal person and a liberal state!

EDIT: I'm reading the link you posted, be back in a sec.

EDIT2: I still don't see what this proves what you said about suppression of free speech. It shows that there's been negative reaction to what a scientist said. Nowhere did I see anything about any sanctions, professional or otherwise, against him. Also, I'd like you to point out the "liberal" scientists in the article, and what makes you think they're "liberal".

Well, I don't want to open the racist/anti-racist can of worms here. So let's just say: When you make a strong statement, expect a reaction. I see nothing that threatens academic freedom in the statements of Watson's opponents. On the contrary, he has said controversial things in the past and still had access to a high-profile forum when he made his latest claims.

He was forced to apologize for voicing a conviction, much like the Harvard academic, Putnam, who recently released some data showing that the most diverse habitations in the world are also the most violent. He, too, had to apologize for no good reason. However, that example is probably a better illustration of what I'm talking about than the previous one I mentioned. You are right in saying Watson opened up a big can of worms.

But consider that Putnam was far less naive than Watson; he delayed releasing his data for years because he was scared. He knew what the consequences would be. It makes you think about how many scientists and other academics have withheld their research in fear of hostile, liberal reactionaries who held their careers in their hands.

Most scholars aren't even liberal in what is now identified as the libertarian sense, so I don't see where the hell you're going with this. All you've shown is that you're ignorant of what liberal is, and you're a stubborn conservative.

I love the international "leftist" conspiracy contrived by American "conservatives", where they claim all academia, media, journalism and scholasticism is being infiltrated by liberals and socialists, with the intent of distorting concord opinion and perverting society, et cetera.

Almost as hilarious as the hardcore 9/11 goons.

Liberal has become associated with Leftism partially because rednecks would feel they had no direction if they didn't have a dualistic worldview which tars everyone and every view that deviates from their values with the same Satanic brush. It makes it easier to exclaim about stuff.

On the other hand it is because the Left want a label which makes them looking like nice, caring people. Seeing as they have a liberal attitude to immigration, crime and so forth, this supposedly earns them the angelic Liberal label. I would naturally have associated the word 'liberal' with easy-going, but the modern day multiculturalist is anything but.



They certainly do, and for that reason I do not think of them as truly liberal. Liberal with a capital L is basically leftist. It's liberal regarding certain issues but not liberal regarding certain opinions.

We've kind of come full circle, if you think about it. For the previous generation there was a big drive to emancipate the arts, sciences and so on from the clutches of fundamentalist Christian institutions, but instead of bringing in an ethos of questioning assumptions (which did happen but to a lesser extent than one would have hoped), it just brought in a set of new ones, with the drive edging towards just trying to be the opposite of all those Christian institutions. I can't determine to what extent the media and academia is 'infiltrated' by these types (apart from the overbearing 'leftie' presence at universities) but now we live in an age where our borders are incredibly flimsy, family values have gone down the drain (kids having kids, etc) and thugs run rampant.

I don't mean to suggest that there's some sort of liberal conspiracy. Liberals aren't 'infiltrating' academia. They're not conspiring to suppress opinion. It's not a conscious thing.

On the other hand, liberal ideas are, today, associated with all things comfortable and inoffensive. The prevailing values of modern liberals are tolerance, acceptance, compassion, etc. That's all well and good, but I think that as a result, more provocative ideas are frowned upon.

With the Democratic and Republican debates, I've noticed an escalation in the argument concerning the Confederate Flag. Every single politician or public figure I've seen on TV who's tackled this issue has said the exact same thing: 'Well, it's divisive, so we should get rid of it.' Almost everyone I've seen on TV addressing this issue has said these words almost verbatim. This is a perfect illustration of what I'd consider to be suppression of free speech. Imagine that. 'If it's divisive, get rid of it.' What does that tell you? It tells me that next we should burn all our albums. They're divisive, right? Stravinsky's music, Flaubert's novels...hell, even Maxim magazine! Why? Because all these things challenge us in various ways, push our boundaries, tackle issues that are typically ignored. Most liberals that I've met support measures against the public display of the Confederate Flag, and all of them - to a T! - give the same explanation for why they're against it. 'If it's divisive, get rid of it.' That, to me, is the quintessential liberal position.

Yes, as far as the textbook definition of liberalism goes, I'm sure I've demonstrated ignorance (even 'unforgivable' ignorance!), but I never claimed to be an historian or political theorist. I'm just trying to present a picture of what I think liberalism is now. That's what I thought the original post was asking about. Excuse me if I misinterpreted.

And as far as being a 'stubborn conservative', if I have no idea what a liberal is how can you expect me to be a conservative? Truly, I don't know what I am, I have no political affiliations, and I don't vote. My interests aren't being represented by anyone. I am intrigued by the 'Far Right', but, outside of those purile Neo-Nazi groups, I've seen no evidence of it in American culture. I'm certainly stubborn, though, and proud of it.