How the word 'liberal' gets used these days (DC thread)

[mikeymikec]

IMO how the word 'liberal' gets used these days (in the context of politics) has so diluted the term to make it meaningless. I honestly think how it gets used a lot of the time is to say, "something I'm not".

For example, here's the word being used in a gun control thread:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/as-reagan-once-said-well-there-you-go-again.2486655/

Definition of liberalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Based on that, a "liberal" for example could be pro gun ownership or against it. The argument for is pretty obvious, being a pro-liberty perspective.

The argument for a liberal being against it for example could be that being pro civil rights and liberties in general is likely to place one commonly in defence of people who are less able (and/or have less means) to defend themselves against encroachment of their rights/liberties, and so therefore a particular liberal might be pro gun control because they see it as a tool of power used by those with the means to attack those who do not.

An argument against that (that a liberal could employ) is that a gun is a tool of power that is available for many in say America, and one could see it as a leveller in the defence of civil rights, regardless of wealth (up to a point), power and influence.

I was going to say that abortion is one of the few topics where "liberals" are extremely likely to have similar opinions (being pro choice), but then the point of view that many pro-lifers embrace that "it's a human as soon as it's conceived" could be something a "liberal" would want to protect.

This is completely aside from how the term gets used in contexts outside of civil rights/liberties, such as politics to do with economics, or how it gets used as if it means the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism simply means a desire to conserve, which could allude to just about anything, or even the belief that something exists and the subsequent wish to conserve it. If a "liberal" is pro-gun in America, is he/she both a liberal and a conservative at the same time?

 

[agent00f]

Language is a means of communication, the point is to understand what someone else is trying to say. Words don't actually correspond to absolute things, and the kind of "contradictions" you describe are the result of committing this fallacy.

 

[MongGrel]

Liberal really does not mean much to me period these days.

Some people like to shout it trying to look for some shock effect I suppose.

I guess you just triggered me, amirite ?

 

[mikeymikec]

Language is a means of communication, the point is to understand what someone else is trying to say. Words don't actually correspond to absolute things, and the kind of "contradictions" you describe are the result of committing this fallacy.

I'm going on the assumption that you mean "you describe are the result of you committing this fallacy".

One of the many reasons why modern languages have more words (and an ever increasing number of words) is to ensure that the intended meaning has been conveyed.

I could kind of agree with what you are saying if words such as "liberal" were 'officially' demoted in meaning to the same class as "thing", "thingmajig", etc (ie. a word you use to describe something that you are not sure how to describe, which in the course of thinking about this response, I have demoted the word "dongle" ).

 

[agent00f]

I'm going on the assumption that you mean "you describe are the result of you committing this fallacy".

One of the many reasons why modern languages have more words (and an ever increasing number of words) is to ensure that the intended meaning has been conveyed.

I could kind of agree with what you are saying if words such as "liberal" were 'officially' demoted in meaning to the same class as "thing", "thingmajig", etc (ie. a word you use to describe something that you are not sure how to describe, which in the course of thinking about this response, I have demoted the word "dongle" ).

Generally there's no such thing as "official" meaning, only what is meant to be communicated. Words are just tools for that communication. Dictionaries and such are only intended as rough guidelines for usage, a few lines of text cannot possibly convey the nuance of human expression anyway.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The trouble is people who use it as a derogatory term. As if people should be ashamed to have their beliefs. It is just another indication of how divided politics has become in this country. Sad...

 

[Craig234]

There is not one clear definition, but it has a meaning.

The main meaning is that in the world today, there are major issues around authoritarianism and plutocracy - and liberalism is opposed to those.

In practice, it often involves equality - anti-discrimination and equal rights.

There is a 'classic' definition that is obsolete, which is more 'Libertarian' but right-wingers sometimes like to try to claim for themselves.

And yes, for many on the right, the word liberal has been made a synonym for 'wrong' - a pejorative said with the same sort of venom that might be used for 'Nazi' or 'traitor'.

It also raises the question, what is the difference between liberal and progressive?

There is a wing of 'liberal' that is less far to the left, that is more pro-wealth, less pro-worker - a set of views most 'liberals' today wouldn't much like. But this isn't how it's often used.

'Liberal' was successfully attacked for a long time in the US - almost always - but especially since Reagan such that politicians didn't usually like the word.

Bernie Sanders did a lot to restore the political power of liberal along with progressive and even Democratic Socialist with his candidacy this year.

Hillary early in the campaign was following the traditional politics of saying she has been accused of being a centrist and she pleads guilty.

By the end of the primaries, she was having to reverse that under pressure from Sanders and say she is a progressive, true or not.

I once wrote a list of things to try to distinguish what a liberal is.

The first item was, do you consider yourself a member of the human race first and a citizen of your nation second, or the other way? Human race first is liberal.

Liberals are tending to be more empathetic and universal in their thinking, concerned with injustice based on selfishness by the powerful - they are attracted to slogans such as 'an injustice to anyone is an injustice to everyone'.

Liberals are more against inequality, discrimination, violence for selfish reasons, use of extreme harm to enemies - against capital punishment for criminals or torture for enemies.

Liberals are more willing to support what is 'right' and pay the price. If cars threaten the atmosphere, let's have fewer cars if needed to solve it.

It'd be natural to define 'conservative' in contrast, but I won't do that here, because it's a mess. For example, I think that there is an agenda of plutocracy that has hijacked the word conservative, and that so many people who call themselves conservative are quite misguided and manipulated that it's a big mush to define.

Conservative can mean anything from pro-corporate personhood to favoring the use of torturing enemies to libertarianism and anti-government view to much more.

There's also a less used, more traditional, more general meaning of the word, which basically means, 'don't rush into changing things'. They are attracted to the saying, 'don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put there'.

Largely, the words liberal and conservative are often used today to simply be 'team names' in US politics.

One other complication to note - the 'two sides' will often agree about a goal, but each claim that only their policies will get the goal. So, for example, both sides will claim they're against poverty - but each will say their policies will reduce poverty and the other side's will increase it. So the claimed goal, anti-poverty, is harder to call liberal or conservative.

 

[Craig234]

One other note - foreign policy. History has changed words there, also. For the century before Vietnam, Democrats tended to be more interventionist - Wilson led the US into World War I against
public opinion, and FDR led the US into World War II, while Republicans' strongest campaign plank was a pledge not to enter the war.

Since Vietnam, that has reversed, and Democrats are the more anti-war party, while Republicans are more interventionist, big military, and pro-hegemony.

That mixed history makes it hard to put liberal and conservative labels on foreign policy, but today, liberal usually means 'conservative' about the use of force.

Also, no matter how hawkish a leader is they'll almost certainly claim 'war is a last resort' and that they are strongly opposed to it if it can be avoided, muddying the waters as well.

 

[agent00f]

Liberal and conservative are both more relative terms (ie to the zeitgeist) than absolute ideologies.

"Classic" liberalism is just called that because it's what liberals of the time believed. Times have changed and so has what that label identifies.

 

[PaulAckles]

Liberal is a person with liberal views. However, an extreme liberal is the worst type of person. To start with they brainwash people.

Thiessen Law Firm

 

[MongGrel]

Liberal is a person with liberal views. However, an extreme liberal is the worst type of person. To start with they brainwash people.

Thiessen Law Firm

The derp is strong with this newbie.