Liberalism, whats so bad about it?

[Eternal Paradox]

This question is posed at all you anti-liberals. What is so bad with liberalism? I see liberalism as being progressive.

I really can't see why the term liberal is seen as being negative. Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, liberals want to change things for the better. Is it that conservatives fear change?

To quote John Kennedy:

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

Note: sorry I don't have much to add, but I'm a bit tired, and I was interested in seeing others response.

[andi]

You're using a lot of words, and you don't know what they mean.

If you would choose to define the words you're trying to use in this particular discussion, then I'd be able to actually respond properly.

What is "liberalism"? Classic Liberalism, Social Liberalism?

What is "progressive"? Progressivism? Something heading towards a goal (and if so, what is that goal?)?

what is "conservative"? A conservative is Russia (Putin, a communist, intent on returning to the soviet era) is certainly not a "conservative" here. Are you speaking of conservatism as naturally a bad thing, and why (if or not)? Does wanting to return to a previous system make your idea inherently wrong?


In the kennedy quote...

"someone who looks ahead to what?"
"welcomes what new ideas? - new ideas are not necessarily good, and old ideas are not necessarily bad"
"cares about the welfare of what people? at what cost? you obviously can't support everyone with everything they ever want (you can't produce unlimited stuff for everyone, and can't have the best quality without paying a price for it), so what limits should you have? What price, and paid by whom?"

"what stalemate and suspicions? why do they exist?"

"is the definition of liberal an actual definition of 'liberal', or is it a total straw man?"

There are so many ambiguities in your statement that I can't even take it for anything other than a rambling speech by someone who doesn't even know what they're arguing for or against.

Before you get into a political discussion, I'd suggest considering just how large the political spectrum is. Check out The Political Compass, take the test, and maybe then I'll actually have an idea of what you're arguing against. Maybe it'll help you sort out exactly what you think "liberal" and "conservative" mean, or if they're even real terms with a relevant meaning, and then we can get a real discussion under way. :3

[Eternal Paradox]

Originally Posted by andi

You're using a lot of words, and you don't know what they mean.

You're right, I have a vague idea of what the words mean. But, I'm not using them on a global level (should have specified that in OP, sorry) but on the American level.

This is a discussion on American politics, Democrat/Liberal v Republican/Conservative. My attempt with this thread was to try and understand why American Conservatives are so dead set against American Liberals.

For example, there is a quote that is thrown around here by some people:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder", why is liberalism a mental disorder? Why is liberalism something to be abhorred?

What is "liberalism"? Classic Liberalism, Social Liberalism?

I was talking about this kind of liberalism.

Modern liberalism in the United States, also referred to as American liberalism or simply as "liberalism" by Americans themselves, is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty, defined as the provision of both negative rights, that is freedom from coercion, and positive rights, such as education, health care and other services and goods believed to be required for human development and self-actualization. Consequently it attempts a wide distribution of power, where no ethnic group, religion or socio-economic class dominates the polity, free exchange of ideas, and government ensured provision of basic rights, such as education and health care in order to create an effective form of freedom.

Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is "progressive"? Progressivism? Something heading towards a goal (and if so, what is that goal?)?

By progressive, I meant looking toward the future, and changing things for the better.

what is "conservative"? A conservative is Russia (Putin, a communist, intent on returning to the soviet era) is certainly not a "conservative" here. Are you speaking of conservatism as naturally a bad thing, and why (if or not)? Does wanting to return to a previous system make your idea inherently wrong?

By conservative, I meant the conservatism that is practiced in the US.

While wanting to return to a previous system doesn't make the idea inherently wrong, it is not always better.

"someone who looks ahead to what?"

The future, trying to make society better.

"welcomes what new ideas? - new ideas are not necessarily good, and old ideas are not necessarily bad"

While new ideas may not be necessarily good, we should always look at them with an open mind. And not just brush them off because they are new, and don't agree with your current ideology.

"cares about the welfare of what people? at what cost? you obviously can't support everyone with everything they ever want (you can't produce unlimited stuff for everyone, and can't have the best quality without paying a price for it), so what limits should you have? What price, and paid by whom?

"
What people? - The people the government governs.

I know you can't support everyone with everything they want, but, I'm saying the government should be able to provide basic liberties and rights. And if those aren't adequate, then they should be able to fix it.

"what stalemate and suspicions? why do they exist?"

The "stalemate and suspicions" within American politics. Many members of our US government are unwilling to reach across party lines in creating new policies.

"is the definition of liberal an actual definition of 'liberal', or is it a total straw man?"

As defined by liberals.

Before you get into a political discussion, I'd suggest considering just how large the political spectrum is. Check out The Political Compass, take the test, and maybe then I'll actually have an idea of what you're arguing against. Maybe it'll help you sort out exactly what you think "liberal" and "conservative" mean, or if they're even real terms with a relevant meaning, and then we can get a real discussion under way. :3

The results:
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67



I'm sorry for the confusion, I'll edit my post later on, once I have more time.

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

"Liberalism is a mental disorder", why is liberalism a mental disorder? Why is liberalism something to be abhorred?

It is a mental disorder because of the people who are under the banner preaching their filth. People like Obama and Hillary, like Ted Kennedy and a plutherough of others, who want bigger government and populace who can't think or provide for itself. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Wrong.

They idolized John F Kennedy, who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

That line right there is against the mainstream liberals which we loath so. Yet they try and categorize themselves with that, it is a LIE.

[GDwarf]

Well, it's hardly filth FoV, to feel that personal needs should be less important than the needs of everyone else.


The risk is taking that too far and stating that personal needs have no validity what-so-ever.

[Lantean]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

"Liberalism is a mental disorder", why is liberalism a mental disorder? Why is liberalism something to be abhorred?

Because, here in the U.S., it does a great deal more harm than good. Some who call for changes: political correctness complicates things way too much, people immaturely screaming "sexist" at every thing under the sun, the age of suing for stupid reasons, giving illegal immigrants a voice and free school and college (while those who worked hard to get in don't because of them) instead of upholding the law and deporting them while persecuting those who dare speak against it, "smart fencing," and many more examples are reasons why I think liberalism is a mental disorder. In the sudden rush for change "for the better," some people don't realize the damage they're causing.

Oh, and here's my thingy. I don't really understand it, but whatever.

[Bobslob]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

This question is posed at all you anti-liberals. What is so bad with liberalism? I see liberalism as being progressive.

I really can't see why the term liberal is seen as being negative. Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, liberals want to change things for the better. Is it that conservatives fear change?

Be very careful with your usage of terms and definitions.

Liberals are those who "want to change things for the better."

Well, when you put it that way, I'd have to be pretty stupid to be conservative, wouldn't I? After all, who wants to change things for the worse?

Quite clearly these nominal definitions are too superficial to have any real bite in a debate.

I would suggest that we investigate a few things.

Do liberals want change for the sake of change? This would seem pointless. Change is not a thing which is good in and of itself, it is only good inasmuch as it brings us to a good.

Having established that change is not necessarily good (after all, when what you have is good you definitely ought not to change it), then we could perhaps trivially define liberals as wanting change for the better. But this is clearly vacuous-- who doesn't want change for the better? Conservatives surely would not oppose this.

I think the conservative mentality is not that change is bad-- I certainly don't think that-- but rather that change ought to be navigated slowly, carefully and with the aid of tradition. It is difficult to foresee how a change will turn out and what effects it will have. A saying which I am fond of is that one ought not to take a fence down until one learns the reason why it was put up. Conservatives give more weight to how things have been and require a compelling reason to change.

But have I defined liberals out of existence now?

-Rob

[GDwarf]

Oddly enough, most of my answers were for greater personal freedom, yet it's calling me "liberal", rather different from what most people here are calling Liberals.



Really, this is a ridiculously difficult topic, because you won't find many liberals (or conservatives) who can agree on a definition for what that means, never mind finding people from opposite corners of the spectrum who will.



Blizzaga: "Liberalism" (in it's most extreme form, anyways) tends to be opposed to political correctness. It is, in fact, an anarchic system. Yet FoV insists that liberals want to expand the government to be all-consuming.


See the problem? We're all arguing against a different definition, and I doubt we'll get this cleared up any time soon.

[Lantean]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

See the problem? We're all arguing against a different definition, and I doubt we'll get this cleared up any time soon.

Sorry. Whenever I refer to liberalism, I'm specifically talking about liberalism in the U.S. And by all the confusion and points you made (the political correctness point), you further proved that liberalism in the U.S. is a mental disorder.

[GDwarf]

Well, let's try working on a definition, shall we?

I tend to associate liberals with limitations imposed on businesses, emphasis on education, and increased personal freedom.


What do you mean when you say "liberalism"?

[Lantean]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

What do you mean when you say "liberalism"?

Liberals trying to make all sorts of changes in the U.S., regardless if they are for the better or for the worse.

[GDwarf]

That doesn't help a definition.

Are you defining it as people who are "for change for change's sake"? Or perhaps people that don't agree with you? What, exactly, is your definition?

[Lantean]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Are you defining it as people who are "for change for change's sake"? Or perhaps people that don't agree with you? What, exactly, is your definition?

I don't have my own definition. It just appears to me that liberals here in the U.S. are perverting what you say is the true definition?

[Akira]

Oh look, I'm marginally Libertarian. Imagine that.


So, listening to all the different stances of politicians around America, I don't think the definitions of "Liberalism" that have been covered in here fit the "Liberal" politicians. Certainly, the idea that liberals want to make change for the better, promoting individual freedom and all that seems like a good definition at first, but then when you look at the "liberals," you might notice some trends.

First off, it seems that largely, "Liberals" don't really want individual freedom. Nationalizing everything, and then forcing everyone to have this-and-that is certainly not the freedom to choose. And....isn't that what freedom is?

"Liberals" (notice I put it in "") are all about spend! Spend! Spend! And, of course, "Tax the rich!" Not that raising taxes on rich people (who already contribute most of the federal budget) is really all that great of an idea in the long term.

But that's the thing. "Liberals" are not about the "long term." It's what seems to be the "best" thing to do for the next 6 months or so, no matter the cost a few years down the road.


...Of course, the "Conservatives" are barely better. Generally more hypocritical, even. At least the "Liberals" don't pretend they want smaller government.

[Igna]

Make of that what you will. I don't have very much of an economic opinion, thus, it's in the middle.

People like Obama and Hillary, like Ted Kennedy and a plutherough of others, who want bigger government and populace who can't think or provide for itself. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Wrong.

So, being 'wrong' qualifies as a mental disorder? Interesting.

Some who call for changes: political correctness complicates things way too much, people immaturely screaming "sexist" at every thing under the sun, the age of suing for stupid reasons, giving illegal immigrants a voice and free school and college (while those who worked hard to get in don't because of them) instead of upholding the law and deporting them while persecuting those who dare speak against it, "smart fencing," and many more examples are reasons why I think liberalism is a mental disorder. In the sudden rush for change "for the better," some people don't realize the damage they're causing.

So conservatives don't act politically correct? Liberals are the only ones who sue for stupid reasons? I'm a liberal, and I don't immaturely scream "sexist" everywhere. These are all just sweeping generalizations, whichever way you look at them.


I'm just trying to say that the saying "Liberalism is a mental disorder", isn't really clever or witty at all, and it doesn't hold much truth in it. Yes, I'm sure there are many liberals in the US who are wrong about their policies, but these little phrases just reek of intolerance and closed-mindedness.

You might as well just say, "Hey, I'm a conservative, and I'm not going to listen to anything you say!"

Because that's the effect that it has.

[Mad Hatter]

Does anyone else think liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy? Can't we be liberal on some issues and conservative on others? Are right wing libertarians liberals? What about post-modernists?

I think it would be more productive to evaluate each issue independently rather than just dismiss it as part of the liberal agenda. We're polarized enough as it is.

[Akira]

Yes, the liberal/conservative thing is definitely not right. There are far more categories to have scales of opinion in than just one thing. But what good is a huge range of possible spectra to the media? Doesn't make as good a story if there's a bunch of ways to class people, really.

[squall24]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Does anyone else think liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy? Can't we be liberal on some issues and conservative on others? Are right wing libertarians liberals? What about post-modernists?

I think it would be more productive to evaluate each issue independently rather than just dismiss it as part of the liberal agenda. We're polarized enough as it is.

You mean like this:


I'm surprised that I'm that close to neutral, as I thought I swung a lot further to the right.

[lord-of-shadow]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Does anyone else think liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy? Can't we be liberal on some issues and conservative on others? Are right wing libertarians liberals? What about post-modernists?

I think it would be more productive to evaluate each issue independently rather than just dismiss it as part of the liberal agenda. We're polarized enough as it is.

Exactly. Both labels may be marginally useful in a really broad sense, but for the most part they fail to take into account the complexities of the issues, and allow for polarization and stereotyping.

I am a HUGE liberal in many ways - I am pro-choice, support legalization of marijuana, want to lower the legal drinking age, support same-sex marriage, and support the removal of trade barriers. All very liberal stances.

On the other hand, I want to ban tobacco, support government regulation of business practices, a moderate form of socialized healthcare, support government enforcement of environmental standards, etc. ANd those are the opposite of liberal stances. Which doesn't make them conservative, by the way.

So what am I? Liberal? Or not? I don't know. I tend to think of myself as a liberal, but in many ways I am not. The label fails to accurately depict my beliefs. And that's the same for everyone; there are very few people who are purely liberal.

[Nox]

Eh, pretty much in the middle left.

Liberal is a loose term anyway, just like conservative. You can't honestly say you are a liberal and support everything liberal, just like a conservative can't say he supports everything conservative. And if you do agree with everything your political ideology says, you're a tool.

[Axiomist]

Liberals aren't all bad, they shouldn't be trusted to steer the world's largest economy tho. I see their role as part of the check and balance system. Conservatives aren't all that great either. Under x yrs of Complete conservative control- we pretty much have an economic disaster.

So as a Libertarian, I vote for those candidates when possible. Liberals for Judges and Mayors and such. Conservatives for Fiscal offices.

[Notsil]

There's mine.

Originally Posted by Nox

Liberal is a loose term anyway, just lik