Neocons use "liberal" as a bad word..Let's take a look what it means to be liberal
 

Neocons like to call their enemies liberals as if it was a bad thing. Lets take a look at what liberals have done for the country and what conservatives have done and then someone tell me what anyone can be proud to be a conservative.

Liberals:

-Ended segregation
-Won for women and African-Americans the right to vote
-Created Social Security, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act and the Clean Water Act.

What did conservatives do? They opposed every single one of those things. I think there should be a national Liberal day where everyone takes a moment to remember what Liberals have achieved despite being fought at every juncture by the conservatives. If it wasn't for liberals, we'd all be living in the stone age like Iran or Afghanistan for crying out loud.

The whole "liberal" concept is a joke my friend. What is liberal supposed to mean? That each and every Ameican should be free to pursue their own particular brand of happiness w/o harming others? Please agree to that so I can show you how so called liberals violate their own ideology. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Do you want to know what neocons think or conservatives think?

I have always been more than amused at the name Treehuggers. As if it is bad? I never got that?

I've been known to use that one! In the 1970's, a environmentalist group, Green Left, sued the Army Corps of Engineers to block the building of floodgates in two places that would have blocked the Gulf of Mexico from entering the lake thus flooding New Orleans. Now that's what I call 'Treehuggers'!

If I boil down the terms liberal and conservative to their base meanings, my interpretation always ends up this way:

liberal = progressive
conservative = regressive

My preferred direction is toward things that might be, not toward things that already were. Guess that makes me a liberal.

You fail to see the other side of the coin. Liberals have raised taxes to levels of insanity, and they have created all those stupid "consumer protection" laws designed to beat down any business that makes a product which a moron could use to hurt himself. Liberals worship price controls, nationalization, redistribution of wealth, and other impractical economic crusades. On economic issues, liberals are utopian socialist crackpots.

The fundamental principle of economic liberalism is that "businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity." If that is not an inversion of reality, I don't know what is.

First of all you must state what definition of "liberal" you are using.

The American definition of liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties". Judging by the American definition, anybody can accurately call themselves a liberal depending on how they look at the world. The American term covers both sides of the coin.

The universal definition of "liberal", however, is "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets". This is the definition of "liberal" that I use.

What are known as "liberals" in America are socialists; the "liberal" standing of today is exactly opposite of what the liberal standing has been everywhere else in history. This is because America is evolving from democracy to despotism rather than from despotism to democracy, which is the way things normally go.

The true "liberals" are libertarians. Neither the Democrats (socialists) or Republicans (fascists) can truly be called liberal.

You know what I actually agree with you that the liberals have supported many stupid programs in their time. Thats one thing that I side with conservatives on. I don't like welfare, special social programs or high taxes.
Unfortunately the Republicans have brought you to the point where if you dont raise taxes at least a little bit China will own you.

Of course I'm only looking at the overall picture because no side is perfect. Overall I see more progress and less failure in terms of advancement of society from the left.

Liberals supposedly accept that others have different ideas and desires. Hardly what today's liberals are like. Today they embrace all ideas as long as they agree with them.

I don't think it's accurate to give a blanket characterization to all liberals--or all conservatives for that matter. I definitely consider myself in the former class of liberals, not the latter. An ability to compromise is a big part of my ideology. I think that these days compromise and diplomacy are lost arts on both sides.

.

Apparently not.

.

You scorn one ideological label, but your critique is entirely based upon another ideological label. Thus, the only resolution to this is a partisan mud-slinging match. The proper terms to be used here are Republican and Democrat.

Btw, those two terms are not in any way related to the actual concepts of liberal or conservative. They are media-encouraged shorthand for the purposes of fostering conflict. That the terms themselves are confused here is indeed purposeful for this purpose. They serve the purpose very well.

I am a true liberal of the old school - downright Whiggish if you really consider the matter - and proud of it. But you won't get me to agree with even a quarter of what the Democratic Party of the USA stands for. The same can of course be said of the Republican Party of the USA.

*Note to ideological partisan warriors: If you seek to beat the enemy, grab a good policy or single issue and run with it. Spear-fighting with an abstract enemy on a theroetical approach to popular partisanship is a complete waste of time and bandwidth - it is as they say, merely partisan masturbation.

Yes, we should take a look. This is going to be long, but only because I'm serious about conveying information and so forth. Many of the replies so far are the kind of thing I hear in any other politics discussion, where the people don't have a handle on it because the knowledge is just too vague. That wasn't to slam anyone, it's just an observation. People discuss because they want to find out the root of things, right? You want to know some facts, you ask questions. My source is a primer, and early on it explains what it calls "essentially contested concepts." I would word that as "the minimal set of assumptions you need to make definitions for a discussion."

First, we need to know what the problems are that these ideologies try to address. So one of the minimal assumptions we need is to pin down the things we want. This is an "essentially contested" bit--it's open to debate, but in the end you may all agree on Freedom, Equality, and Democracy as building blocks for our present society. There are, you may find, 2 options for achieving each of these goals.

Liberty: Positive and Negative. This isn't a value judgement, it's just a label so we all know how we're going to operate. Negative freedom is the right to be left alone, "your right to swing your arm stops at my face" sort of thing. You have the right to not be taxed, to not be pulled over, to preserve your privacy, etc. This goes hand in hand with a small government and is a conservative ideal.

Positive freedom is the complement: the right to do stuff. We have the right to travel at will, to have our cities maintained, etc. This requires roads and thus taxes, so impinges on our negative freedom. A compromise is needed. You'll see that all these things require balancing, which is why we have 2 parties. The neocons are trying to minimize the left, which defeats the point of striving for democracy, and that, my friends, is unAmerican. Argh I was trying not to editorialize but sometimes it's like being spit on and I have to add something. The right to do things, like keep law and order, struggles with the right not to be pulled over, and so we get things like a probable cause requirement (defeated, in my view, by using dogs to sniff for probable cause, but oh well, that's a different topic). You could also say your negative liberty gives you the right to be free from criminal acts, and this requires police and administration, which require taxes, which reduces that negative freedom in other areas. Positive liberty is a socialistic view, and belongs to the left. Fiscally responsible socialists will work with the conservatives to reach a fair outcome. Right.

Equality: Process-oriented and Results-oriented. Process-oriented equality means a level playing field. The quickie term for it is strict meritocracy. We all have the same right to work and succeed. Individual differences, advantages, or limitations are ignored. You make it on your own, sink or swim, etc. This is a small-government concept that takes pure negative freedom, and it is right-wing.

Results-oriented equality. This recognizes the individual, and strives for equality in the outcome regardless of conflicts in the process. So we get social programs to help people succeed--welfare, scholarships, affirmative action, the ADA, and so on.

Democracy: Elitist and Participatory. Elitist democracy is closest to a republic, which is why I'm guessing they call themselves Republicans. Modern countries are too big to let everyone have a say in every process, and we don't want to be in a town hall to decide whether to let dogs run loose on the beach every day of our lives anyway. So we elect officials who assume the concentration of the power of their constituents.

Participatory democracy is the complete opposite, where everyone pariticpates. If you don't vote, that's your vote, and your wiggle room is much less than if there were a margin of thousands. This works on small scales such as neighborhood councils, town halls, etc. and is a good way to get stuff done. For instance, we had a meth house next door and now the place is infested with rats which create a problem for all of us. We don't call the governor to take care of it, so in this instance we have a degree of self-sufficiency provided by basically forming a union.

Now we know the difference at its core. Pure leftist politics takes on Positive Liberty, Participatory Democracy, and Results-oriented Equality, and pure rightist politics demands the other option. We can't have it at the extremes of the spectrum, but together the two get us what we need.

Nice thinking I'll buy that.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

As a general rule, people really don't seem to like having their ideological labels messed with. I've been over this issue previously in this forum. All the rational discussion in the world doesn't seem to dent the passion or absurdity with which partisans will invoke their ideology and denigrate that of their perceived opponents.

And even though you stated that your intention isn't to slam anyone, your post does presume to assert that I don't have a handle on the issue and that is always a good way to draw a post slam from Mad_Michael. You didn't specifically exempt my post from your critique and thus, I have to conclude that it is covered by your critique. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

Indeed, partisan ideologies may be tiresome, but their intellectual apologists are fucking dangerous!

I checked out the source and scanned the list of articles/essays and most notably, the selected authors. I'm not impressed at all given that the 'authors' are for the most part identifiable partisans who draw their fame from being featured as partisans in the mass media. Not exactly good ground work for a real discussion of the issue - rather framework to ensure that the discussion ought to conform specifically to the predefined absurdities of partisan ideology! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

Forced dichotomies every one of them. Dichotomies are designed to create, encourage and/or rationalise the holding of partisan ideology.

They are value judgements. The dichotomy is false.

My negative right to be left alone is a positive right to deny your interference with it.

My positive right to do what the fuck I want is a negative right to be left alone from your interference.

It is all the same shit.

Tell this one to the capitalists (and their cheerleaders) that their positive liberty to incorporate themselves and advertise their products or services is socialistic. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

Another forced dichotomy designed to create partisan ideology, instead of addessing the issue of equality. My "pure negative" freedom to be treated equally becomes a 'pure positive' freedom when one looks at the issue of my right to be treated equally before the law. Process or result orientations are just a label-spin on the issue to hide the real issue.

And the line about "strict meritocracy" where individual differences and advantages are ignored is absurd. In a strict meritocracy, individual differences and advantages are generally and specifically recognised.

As for "results-oriented equality" that sounds like double-speak for authoritarianism. Enough said.

The real question of equality, is the value and/or purpose of the goal itself - not a game about how to preserve and/or prevent and/or protect existing inequalities.

Again, another forced dichotomy designed to create partisan ideology and sidestep real or deeper issues.

Your participatory democracy model is predicated upon the rule of the elitist model... thou shalt not conceptualise a non-elite-model.

No. The existence of two theoretically opposed political/partisan ideologies within a closed framework of approach is designed to keep the framework of approach closed.

In other words, Republican or Democrat, pick your tribe and claim your support for the never-ending game of elite rule. Choose rationally and be a good cheerleader! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

My apologies. I just felt like a good rant. It is a Sunday morning afterall... http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

The Liberal's Creed

We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/04/creed.html I think that about sums it up and explains why the word "Liberal" is a pejorative.

Typical partisan drivel. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

Nice to know some things never change. That, at least, is conservative.

Don't the truth just bite?

Wow this thread has gone strait to the dogs.