Liberal- thank God!?

Question

I have noticed that the word Liberal is always being thrown- out as an attemped insult.Well the word means.favoring progress or reform.free from prejudice.characterized by generosity.please explain how this world Liberal could be offensive to someone who knows what it means?

Answer 1

Liberal is a relative term. Its definition in the dictionary does not directly apply to American politics. Let me quote Dinesh for the rest of my answer:

The term liberal, in its Greek meaning, refers to the free man, as opposed to the slave. The liberals were originally the partisans of liberty. The American founders, for example, were committed to three types of freedom: economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech and religion. In their classical liberal view, freedom was defined as limiting the power of government, and thus increasing the scope for individual and private action. The spirit of this philosophy is clearly conveyed in the formulations of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law…”

This classical liberalism underwent two dramatic changes in the past century: the revolution of the 1930s, and the revolution of the 1960s. The revolution of the 1930s, the FDR revolution, was based on the assumption that rights are not meaningful unless we have the means to exercise them. As Roosevelt himself argued, people who lack life’s necessities are not free. Roosevelt believed that the government should insure citizens against deprivation, against loss of a job, against calamitous illness, and against an impoverished old age to give them true liberty. Thus the liberal revolution of the 1930s introduced a new understanding of freedom, and involved a vastly greater role for government than the American founders intended.

The second liberal revolution occurred in the 1960s. Its watchword was “liberation,” and its great prophet was Rousseau. Before the sixties, most Americans believed in a moral order in the universe that is external to us, that makes demands on us. Our obligation was to conform to that moral order. Earlier generations, right up to the “greatest generation” of World War II, took for granted this moral order and its commandments: work hard and try to better yourself, be faithful to your spouse, go when your country calls, and so on.

But, starting in the sixties, several factions—the antiwar movement, the feminist movement, the gay activists, and so on—attacked that moral consensus as narrow and oppressive. They fought for a new ethic based not on external authority but on the sovereignty of the inner self. This is the novel idea that received its most powerful expression in Rousseau’s writing. To the American founders’ list of freedoms, Rousseau adds a new one: inner freedom or moral freedom. Rousseau argues that we make major decisions—who to love, what to become, what to believe—not by obeying our parents, teachers, preachers, or even God. Rather, we make such decisions by digging deep within ourselves and listening to the voice of nature in it. This is the idea of being “true to yourself.” It is the new liberal morality.

Having gotten a sense of what liberals believe, let us contrast their views with those of the conservatives. Modern American conservatism is very different from European conservatism, or from conservatism traditionally understood. For one thing, conservatism in this country is “modern,” and for another, it is “American.” Ours is not the “throne and altar” conservatism that once defined European conservatism, and that is still characteristic of many Europeans on the right. These conservatives were true reactionaries. They sought to preserve the ancien regime and the prerogatives of king and church against the arrival of modern science, modern capitalism, and modern democracy.

American conservatives are different because America is a revolutionary nation. For the founders, the ancien regime was the world that they had left behind in Europe. Ours is a country founded by a bunch of guys sitting around a table in Philadelphia and deciding to establish a “new order for the ages.” Being a conservative in America means conserving the principles of the American revolution. (One of the most conservative groups in America calls itself the Daughters of the American Revolution.) Paradoxically, it means conserving a certain kind of liberalism! It means fighting to uphold the classical liberalism of the founding, which is now under assault from liberalism of a different sort.

Classical liberalism, however, does not wholly define modern American conservatism. There is an added element: a concern with social and civic virtue. The term virtue has become a bad word in some quarters of American life. (It is especially unpopular with the chronically wicked and depraved.) Young people, especially, tend to associate it with finger-wagging and with other people telling you how to live your life. This is a very narrow view of virtue: it only applies to what it is good to do, rather than what it is good to be, and what it is good to love.

The conservative virtues are many: national unity, patriotism, a sense of local community, an attachment to family, civility, and a belief in merit, in just desserts, and in personal responsibility for one’s actions. For many conservatives, the idea of virtue cannot be separated from the idea of God. But it is not necessary to believe in God to be a conservative. What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that there are moral standards in the universe, and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.

Conservatives recognize, of course, that people frequently fall short of these standards. In their personal conduct, conservatives do not claim to be better than anyone else. Newt Gingrich was carrying on an affair at the same time that Bill Clinton was romancing Monica Lewinsky. But for conservatives, these lapses do not provide an excuse to get rid of the standards. Even hypocrisy—professing one thing but doing another—is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards, which leads to moral chaos or nihilism.

Since modern conservatism is dedicated both to classical liberalism and to virtue, it is open to the charge of contradiction. What happens when there is a tension between liberty and virtue? Conservatives are often accused of resolving the tension by opting for liberty in the economic domain but for virtue in the social domain. If liberalism inconsistently holds that government should get out of the bedroom and into the pocketbook, conservatives appear to espouse the opposite philosophy of government: “Out of the pocketbook and into the bedroom.”

Conservatives find this slogan amusing, but only because of its absurdity. In fact, I don’t know of a single conservative who has advocated government surveillance—let alone intervention—in anyone’s bedroom. But it is true that the conservatives are willing at times to curtail liberty. When there is a threat to national security, as in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack, conservatives believe that it may be necessary to limit certain freedoms in order to protect citizens’ lives. Conservatives in general see nothing wrong with restricting pornography, with limiting the legal benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples, or with outlawing the use of hard drugs.

Thus neither conservatives nor liberals are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. What really distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not that one is for freedom and the other is against freedom; rather, what separates them that they have different substantive views of what constitutes the good life.

Let us make a list of the liberal virtues: equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, opportunity, peace, autonomy, tolerance. Liberals become impassioned when they use these terms: they make up the moral priorities of the modern liberal worldview. By contrast, conservatives emphasize other virtues: merit, patriotism, prosperity, national unity, social order, morality, responsibility. Both sides are willing to place occasional restraints on freedom to achieve their substantive vision of the good society. Indeed some liberals attach very little importance to freedom. The Columbia radicals felt themselves to be perfectly justified in trying to silence my talk: in their view, I have forfeited my right to free speech because I oppose their leftist agenda.

There is some overlap in the moral vocabulary that liberals and conservatives use. Both speak of “equality,” although they mean different things by the term. Conservatives emphasize equality of rights, and they are quite willing to endure inequalities that are the product of differential capacity or merit. Liberals emphasize equality of outcomes, and they tend to attribute inequality to the unequal opportunities that have been provided by society. Another term that both liberals and conservatives use is “morality,” but conservatives tend to define morality personally, while liberals define it socially. Conservatives find it hard to believe that a sexual reprobate could be a good person, but many liberals who acknowledged Bill Clinton’s personal failings nevertheless considered him an admirable person because of his public positions in favor of the poor and women’s rights.

Since conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of the good society, their priorities are different, and this leads to contrasting policy positions. Conservatives emphasize economic growth, while liberals emphasize economic redistribution. Conservatives like to proclaim their love of country, while liberals like to proclaim their love of humanity. Conservatives insist that force is required to maintain world order, while liberals prefer the pursuit of peace through negotiation and dialog. Conservatives are eager to preserve moral standards; liberals cherish personal autonomy.

At root, conservatives and liberals have two different conceptions of human nature that cause them to see the world so differently. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau’s proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold that the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good versus evil; rather they arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of groups like the United Nations. Finally the liberal’s high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well.

Conservatives know better. Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice.

I am a conservative, Chris, because I believe that the conservatives have an accurate understanding of human nature and the liberals do not. Since the liberals have a wrong view of man, their policies are unlikely to achieve any good results. In some cases they even subvert liberal objectives. Richard Nixon once described the liberal Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” For all its grand proclamations, today’s liberalism seems to be characterized by a pathological hostility to America, to capitalism, and to traditional moral values. In short, liberalism has become the party of anti-Americanism, economic plunder, and immorality. By contrast, conservative policies are not only more likely to produce the good society, but they are also the best means to achieve liberal goals such as peace, tolerance, and social justice.

Answer 2

The negative side was created by the Repubs as a way to label people who did not conform to their mentallity. As the Repubs "mission" blossomed the term became popular to mean a negative meaning. However, in reality, it means what you stated and the Repubs are losing ground. But the negative stigmatism is still sticking so it may take more time for the ill diagnosed meaning to wear off. But it's all cyclycal and the Repubs will be wondering what they can do to be more "liberal" soon enough to be back in power....As the sift is already in progress.

Answer 3

You are so right, my friend. Most of the Bushie Nazi youth and the Limbaugh Ditto Heads on this site who toss around the word "liberal" as being synonymous with being unpatriotic have never bothered to look up thw word in the dictionary, and probably do not realize that our Founding Fathers were liberals to, as they were seeking to escape Government oppression from England. The people who think liberal is derogatory are victims of the Bush Administration's propoganda program, which says that if you are not for them you are against the U.S.A. They forget that us liberals love our contry so much we want to keep the freedoms our Founding Fathers fought for.

Answer 4

This doesn't make sense. A woman who declares herself "pro-choice" could still choose to carry a pregnancy to full term. After all, many women who are active in Planned Parenthood have children and are "pro choice" -----they don't believe in abortion as the answer to every single pregnancy. Personally, I don't believe in abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, however, I am also against wars built on fabrications and the death penalty and I feel that if you are pro-life it should include more than just the fetus ----why not contribute to a home for teenager mothers or something like that?

Answer 5

The only problem with the word Liberal is that the ones that are Liberal are running away from it in droves. Why Is that? You can't insult someone who doesn't take is as an insult.

Answer 6

Because most of the liberals on Y/A don't fit that description you gave.Take a look at the hate bursting out of the "tolerant" libs.

Answer 7

The people that use liberal as an insult are dumb and need to stop talking, libtard is the insult I prefer to use. It means liberal idiot just as most of them are. I have my opinions and you have yours and i can say that your opinions are stupid and you to me, the only difference is that you take it offensively and I don't. So don't get upset it just honest and reality verses dreaming and hypocrisy

Answer 8

Don't worry just remember:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frist, and Delay are on their side.

You don't have to feel bad about that.

Answer 9

you are right however; liberal are in favor of the slaughter of babies(abortion) and just about all immoral evils under the sun. So in that respect that word is an insult.

Answer 10

true that.
not look at conservative, and how it has no relationship the the republican party.

Answer 11

Its not, it is however used (by the most republicans here) by ugly people with ugly motives.