Would someone explain why so many people consider liberal to be a dirty word?

Question

There is so much vitriolic language directed at the "liberals"

They are called wackos, communists, socialists, weak, tax and spend, cowardly etc.

The term liberal within a political context really should mean people who support social change and the general betterment of the human condition. What is exactly wrong with that?

Further it shouldn't and can't automatically be chained with another concept such a socialism or communism. FDR and Harry Truman, for example, were fervent liberals but strictly ant-communist.

And as far as taxing and spending, this is by far not a liberal exclusive trait. The current administration has spent this country almost to point of bankruptcy. Eventually we are going to have to pay the check whish means taxes. Otherwise how does one propose we do it?

Can we get away from name calling and discuss topics in a rational fashion or have we all just succumed to schoolyard bully tactics?

OK

Socialism as I understand it is the call for the nationalization of industry and resources. As far as I know there isn't a relevent politician alive that is calling for the government to do that. The closest thing to socialism is a call for universal health care.

Many have mentioned the term Hippies. Hippies? were there any left after 1974?

Answer 1

There is nothing wrong with liberals, real ones that is, but what you are talking about are the SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS hiding behind the liberal label and their takeover of the Democratic Party(George Soros)

SO where part of what you say is true, they are today SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS, FASCISTS, HUMANISTS, SECULARISTS, ANIMALISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, they are weak in foreign affairs and in particular National Security, they do consistently raise taxes and so forth.

SO what are you asking about, or are you a socialist hiding behind the liberal label

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C.S. Lewis

Answer 2

It's really a cunning political tactic, if you think about it... the bastardizing of "liberal" (and even the term "conservative" in other social circles) has always been around. It started up again in the early 90s and is now culminating into what we see today.

It's politics. Expect the pendulum to "swing back" in a few more years, thanks to Bush!

But I totally get what you're saying in regards to the "schoolyard bully tactics". That crap is actually condoned in a lot of the media (think FauxNews, O'Reilly and Coulter and their ilk) which I think is deplorable. Politics are no excuse to act like a jack*** to others. Just because you identify yourself as "Conservative", (or vice versa) it doesn't give you the right to dehumanize and devalue a "Liberal." And, while you CAN identify predominately with one group, you do not have share EVERY ONE of that group's opinions! Otherwise, wouldn't you be a sheep?

You ARE a complicated, multi-facted person underneath your political affiliation, and people seem to forget that.

Answer 3

Whatever liberalism meant in the past, those who have been calling themselves liberals during the past half-century have given the word an ugly connotation. Liberals apply to social reform and its concomitant politics a peculiar sort of thinking, characterized by a refusal to recognize failure and by a further refusal to make necessary adjustments in their apprehension of the problems they wish to treat. Liberals continually insist, as each of their programs in succession fails, fails, fails..., that the reason is that they weren't "aimed" just right, and that if they would "focus" a bit better there suddenly would be miraculous results. You'd think that over 40 years of failure would have corrected this nonsense, but liberals are stubborn. Maybe they are afraid that someone will hold them accountable for the mess that they have made of our society, and perhaps it is out of fear that they insist, so to speak, that the next bucket of gasoline will surely put out the fire, if only we first paint the bucket a different color. Society in general has been overly tolerant of liberals. Anyone else's programs would be judged by their RESULTS. Liberalism's programs, however, are judged by their INTENTIONS, by their AIMS, by their PROMISES. And no matter how poorly liberals fare with respect to delivering on those promises, they never seem to get their credit cut off. It's like people were infinitely gullible when liberals started talking about charity (he means your money, not his) for "worthy causes" (he means in his opinion, not yours).

Answer 4

Spend some time here and read some of the posts. It's hard to distinguish who is who.

Some of the old time Democrats are getting a bad rap because of the extreme left wing of the party. It's a shame. And somehow, I believe that you might be a neolib?

The same thing is happening with the GOP. I'm an old-timer and am now lost within my own party.

Answer 5

It is called "Propaganda by the Re-Definition of Words".

I think Xeres came up with the idea when he use propoganda to redefine Democracy as something evil to justify attacking Greece. That is when the 300 Liberal Spartans beat his army of a million.

Hitler's Ministry of Propaganda uesd the concept and redefined Jews as evil.

Conservatives believe that if you repeat a lie often enough you can get people to believe it.

Answer 6

"Liberal" is considered a dirty word to true conservatives, (who have nothing to do with scum like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter) because it is usually manifested in the fashion of meaning, liberty to do immorality and loss of personal freedom to do otherwise to a socialist nanny state. "Liberals" throughout history have always been jaded, irreverent, passive aggresive, hellfire club, Meathead, Marquee de Sade, Alester Crowley, Gloria Steinum, Liberace, George Carlin types, whose only morals are the rhetoical and transitory "morals" of convenience, these wretches are so sinsick and corrupt that they are willing to destroy others to protect/enhance their favorite sins and self interests and to despise and mock goodness, cleaness and innocence to the point of seeking to outlaw and destroy it.

Weve had enough of that kind osf alien baloney and thusly the word "liberal" calls to mind unhappy recollections.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN '08!

Answer 7

I'm with you man, so I can't really tell ya. All I can say is either people in here frequently speak to things that they really don't understand, or it's modern day McCarthyism where they just call us socialists to scare away others from being associated with (or voting for) liberals. There's extremists on both sides and the majority of liberals should not be clumped in with the extremists.

Answer 8

I would like to see less name calling and more intelligent discussion myself but, I cannot speak for everyone. Some on here seem to thoroughly enjoy it.

Answer 9

Nice try, but you'll never succeed in explaining it to the ones that need it explained the worst. Valiant attempt though.

Answer 10

Look back to the past postings and see who does the majority of bashing...I don't hate liberals.I just get real tired of being call a neocon,as if that is a real word,every time i open my mouth.Both side need to quiet down some and stop calling the President dirty and nasty things.It will not change a thing.And will not change anything until 2008.

And to KAPP above,you need to read more and talk less.