What is a liberal?

Question

Everyone likes to throw this word around like it has some sort of meaning as a way to describe a certain kind of person. "Liberal" is defined as the following:

1-Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3-Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

4-Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Answer 1

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Answer 2

The word has several meanings, as you pointed out. I will only discuss the political meanings.

The word "liberal" comes from the Latin word "liberalis", which means "relating to free people". In antiquity the word described the values and activities of people who were 1) not slaves and not legally bound to anyone, and 2) not dedicated to a specific job or task. In other words, the aristocrats.

In the Modern period, people began using the word to describe policies that gave all citizens the same rights and considerations that only aristocrats received in ancient times.

Soon, a "liberal" was someone who believed that the government was ultimately controlled by the general will of the citizens, and that the government should be severely limited in what it could do to its citizens. Liberals believed that the government had not right to control personal behaviors like religious practice or cultural behaviors like style of dress or language.

Until the Great Depression, "liberal" also meant someone who believed the government should NOT control the economy or business practices of its citizens. Meaning, no social services, no welfare state, no regulation of business aside from deterring outright fraud or direct injury.

In the twentieth century, two things happened to change "liberalism". First, attitudes toward women, minorities, and sexual practices changed. By the mid-twentieth century, the average "liberal" felt that the government should enforce racial and gender equality -- something our "liberal" founding fathers did not consider. Liberals have also recently come to favor government protection for those with alternate sexual practices.

The second major shift was the Great Depression: After this event, most liberals were so horrified by the results of "capitalism gone mad" that they began to support government controls on the economy and the regulation of businesses.

So, in the 21st century, "liberal" now means someone who believes that the government must protect and not intrude upon someone's racial, cultural, religious, or sexual identity. But, they believe that the government must enforce severe regulations on the economy and on the business world.

As you can see, this change is quite dramatic from the "liberals" who founded the United States. So, the word is somewhat confusing.

The term "neo-liberal" and "classical liberal" are used to distinguish between the two kinds of liberals. "classical liberals" are the old kind, and "neo-liberals" are the current kind.

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

This is my definition!

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition that holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed

I am not a Fascist, I don't believe in communism and this country has made a sharp right turn with a leader who is half-baked, and is a Fascist, as outlined in his latest court loss!

Answer 4

In most uses of the word liberal, the user is implying that the other is of socialistic(read communistic) political views.
The other use of the word liberal, is in describing a country. In this meaning the term has a slightly different meaning, implying that all people are equal(to an extent), and that education is important.

Answer 5

A far left liberal is described as an American that is completely anti American. One who puts personal political gain above everything else, including national security, safety of our armed forces in war. They make tremendous efforts to trash talk the USA every chance they get. They get some sort of enjoyment or rush or self-satisfaction out of trying to make the greatest country on the earth out to be a bunch of terrorists, thieves, corrupt, thugs, liars, yellow belly scalawags etc. They deny themselves the gratification that comes with patriotism. They have very little or no concern for whats right or wrong in politics. They wish for death to Americans so they can say (see, we told you so). They dont care If thousands of Americans die because of their actions, its of absolutely no concern to them. The leaders of the liberals have become so desperate that they have evolved in to something that significantly weakens and tarnishes America.

Answer 6

Well unfortunately it sound ok on paper, but that is not what is in practice by the modern day liberal.

1. Are bigoted in their belief that the religion of atheism be forced on everyone

2.Only in favor of reform they choose, only open to an idea if they have it.

3. uh, OK.

4.Unfortunately no-longer like these liberal parties listed because they are being controlled by well funded (Soros) Left-Wing fringe groups.

Answer 7

A Socialist

See, "Mr. Love Peace" is a perfect example of how backward-thinking liberals are. They are so busy redefining who and what they are- they don't have a clue as to what they stand for. They go which way the winds blow. It's just pure stupidity.

The thing that frustrates me the most about "liberals" is that they pick and choose who should have rights. They've gone so far left that they've become what they used to protest. They want to take away freedoms that don't appeal to them- for instance: celebrating Christmas. The ACLU will fight to remove a nativity scene from a park, but will turn around and fight for the rights of pedophiles. It makes no sense, whatsoever.

Answer 8

A BBC Journalist

Answer 9

A liberal, in the way it is used to describe people of a particular political party these days is synonymous with idiot Kool-Aid drinking morons.

Why try to confuse the issue with the actual meaning of the word. You and I both know that's not what it means anymore.

Answer 10

Yeah, the first answer guy sure is a jerk. No wonder he has that look on his face.

ANYhoo... without liberals and progressives FIGHTING (no, not being weak... just the opposite) we would not have many of the rights and laws that we all enjoy. Worker's rights, seat belts, women's rights, child labor laws... Why would anyone have a problem with that?

> They dont care If thousands of Americans die because of their actions, its of absolutely no concern to them. >

Who started ths war?? Who is trying to bring the troops HOME and improve foreign relations so no one else DIES???

And hey UNIVERSAL; even your avatar looks like a douchebag.

Answer 11

Norman
That was very funny. I never laugh out load and what you said made me laugh. I don't agree with you in the least but if you really believe what you said, that is the funniest thing ever.