What is "liberalism" by your understanding?

Question

I've been reading a lot about the roots of liberal democracy as originating in Russeauean republican contract and state theory and as advanced by people like John Rawls...

I've read a lot by their detractors and I'm trying to figure out, out of my own curiosity, how modern usages of liberal are different from the technical, theory-based notion of the idea... and trying to figure out why republicans seem to support Russeauean republicanism but reject egalitarian justice as Rawls saw it...

or any personal opinions about these matters -- I really don't care if you've read this stuff or not, i'm just developing my own understanding however I can

I'm also trying to figure out if there's a contradiction between preserving egalitarian equality and recognition of individuals

Answer 1

I like your questions...keep it up.

It reveals how anti intellectual and without reason those who seem to detest the catch-all "liberals".

As far as I can see,
"liberal" is something that goes across the board for them if you do not fit into the catagory of the authoritarian right.

So you see anyone who fits into any other catagory could be deemed a "liberal", including the libertarian right. But most of all they seem to confuse those of the Authoritarian Left, such as Mao and Stalin with the Libertarian Left, such as Nader and Gandhi, Paine.

If you don't fit into the small window where Bush, Reagan, Thatcher, etc. (and actually to the extreme, Hitler) are, you are at risk of being named "liberal",

basically, they who use the word this way --especially in the US where they have been conditioned by the Republican party,
have no understanding of politics, just venom and talking points.

Answer 2

I understand what it was and have a pretty clear idea what it is based on those who use the label today.

It was a great concept 200 years ago, pretty decent a 100 years ago, slipping into confusion 60 years ago and fell off the left edge of the world about 40 years ago.

Today many who call themselves liberal are just plain old SOCIALISTS. At no point in time is classic liberalism even remotely like SOCIALISM, so it is pretty easy to see the differences today.

Today when someone who says they are liberal talk about social justice, you know they are really a socialist.

I am a liberal and I despise the fact that socialists have abducted our label and have used our reputation to further their evil goals of ruining our country, destroying our economy and trampling on our freedoms.

It would be nice if there was a way to clearly identify socialists without having to listen to what they say, but since they all say the same thing it takes about five minutes or less to know you are listening to one.

One here it takes only one sentence normally.

Answer 3

Some thoughtful questions. The core of liberalism hasn't changed--though specifics have changed as the times have, like anything else. for example, the association of liberal values and workers' rights. Around 1800 this was expressed in terms of the rights of individuals--the "yeoman" and self-sufficient artisan of the Jeffersonian idea of republican virtue. Today, whith the reality that most people must work for organizations in our industrial/post-industrial economy, that has evolved into a liberalism that strongly supports the righs of workers (unionnism, working conditions, etc.)

The "tension" between egalitarian and individualistic values is mostly illusory, in my opinion. Classical liberalism--and modern, for that matter--emphasize the rights of individuals. But in either case, that tension does reflect real questions that go beyond the superficieal arguements you see in today's political arena over such things as welfare, etc. For example, the Utilitarians (Enlightenment) such as Bentham were concerned with how the social order and social instutions could be refromed to promote the greatest good of the greatest number--a modern sociologist would view this in terms of how social order is to be maintained while allowing the maximum of individual opportunity and autonomy. Modern liberalism tends to focus more on the social structures of society--and how those can be reformed to eliminate barriers to individual opportunity while at the same time ensuring there is a "social support" system to protect those unable to care for themselves. One of the key problems is that, as with any philosophy, there are those who take it to extremes (e.g. socialism or even communism) where it becomes in practice not a emancipating but an enslaving doctrine (the same is ture of conservative phhilosophies--carried to extremes they become no more than the ideologies of dictatorship).

But the apparant contradiction of egalitarianism and liberty does not exist--its a matter of how to best implement the ideals of freedom and opportunity--a question of method, not principle.

To get an idea of how the classical liberalism and the modern are linked, and how libralism has changed and how it hasn't, here's some excellant books:

Willentz, Sean "Chants Democratic
Foner, Eric "The Story of American Freedom"
Wiebe, Robert "The Search for Order"
Thoreau "On Civil Disobedience"
Cohen, L. "Consumers' Republic"

Answer 4

real. it really is rumored that this turned right into a romantic homage to her recent love interest: Ice T . Hannah has also signed a freelance to make 7 client appearances T's educate, regulation And Order SVU. Ms. Montana will be taking area in "the hooker with the middle of gold" who wins T's coronary heart after providing him a freebie in substitute for her freedom.

Answer 5

I thought that the actual meaning of liberalism and conservatism were through their interpretations of the constitution. Conservatives try to follow it as strictly as they can while liberals think that there is a lot of room for interpretation.

However in pratice what I see is much different. Liberalism seems to have recently tied its goals and methods with those of Socialist and Communist viewpoints. What I mean by this is how they are constantly trying to push for socialized medicine, higher minimum wages, higher taxes, and how they constantly try to increase the size of government with bureaucratic federalized programs. However their push for egalitarianism becomes obvious when you examine on how they obsess over issues of possible discrimination based on race, sex, religion(religions other than Christianity), and sexual preference. There tactics in this area seem almost two-sided as jumping on someone who even makes a seemingly bigoted hurts free speech (evident in how liberals treat any conservative or republican figures). Also the over regulation of one race and giving subsidies to the other harms both in the long run due to the damage done to the overall initiative done through the effect of government involvement.

At least that is my understanding of the issue.

Answer 6

Liberals share a belief in individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law. In this sense, almost all Americans accept liberal ideals, so much so that it is easy to forget how revolutionary these ideals were when the American Constitution was written. Jefferson said "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." All of our founding fathers considered liberalism a foundation of “the grand experiment”, America. In our era, liberalism has been derided to appear weak and elitist, and, our military is used to enter entangling alliances with some. Think liberal, think BIG!

Answer 7

To liberals and socialists, America has been on top for too long, too proud, and needs to be cut down to size. We are too big economically and presumably put out the most polution, use the most energy, and no country should be this big or this great. To them, success brings on fear that they are putting other countries in poverty, destroying the environment, and becoming unsustainably big.

The good news is they are wrong by virtue of their core beliefs in humanity and govt. Liberalism has nothing but contempt for the average citizen and only believes that good living can come about through following the elite of society (liberals) to properly govern us and show us the right way to live. (Through 50-70% taxes, 30% unemployment, massive welfare roles, multiculturalism, inability to wage war against tyranny, and socialized wait-in-line medicine.) To them, achievment should be limited. Business is the true enemy and should be limited and merely thought of as just another social program. But to conservatives, people are what make the country great, not the elite. And it is GOVERNMENT that is our only enemy if it becomes too big. Govt is something to be restrained, not grown.

Answer 8

Defeat over and over again can change ones outlook on how the game is played. Today's liberal is self-loathing. Always looking out for number one, while stepping in number two. I do feel there is a large gap between today's liberal and Blue Dog Democrats. I also feel that the two will separate causing problems for the Democrats come election time. I think the Republican candidates who fill the void between Radical Liberals, and everyday Democrats will gain a lot of votes from those who typically pull the lever for the D.

Answer 9

Two answers:

Classic liberalism is the desire to better yourself, to take care of your fellow man, donate time and money to benefit the less fortunate, and seeking to preserve the environment.

Modern liberalism is strict adherence to left-wing political dogma, no matter how valid or invalid it may be, while eschewing any other viewpoints.

Just as modern conservatives bear little or no resemblance to classic conservatives, modern liberals have little or nothing in common with classic liberals.

Answer 10

For the most part, those you are referring to as "republicans" here simply repeat the latest right-wing propaganda ad nauseam, there is no real debate of the merits of liberalism, or conservatism for that matter.

Political debate in this nation has boiled down to which "team" do you vote for, never mind that we are all on the same team.