Why is Liberal a four letter word in American politics?

[JMS]

I mean if you look at our four greatest presidents they were all liberals...


Washington... a revolutionary... ( liberal).
Lincoln..... a "radical" republican... ( liberal )
Teddy Roosevelt... a self described progressive liberal.
Franklin Roosevelt...maybe the most liberal of them all.


America hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ in 1968.

I was wondering why? Why did all of the sudden liberals became unelectable in this country?

I was thinking it had to do with the last two liberals to hold office. Truman and LBJ. Both were terrible unpopular leaving office. Truman left office with historically low approval ratings, until GW Bush. Johnson also was terrible unpopular carrying the blame of the vietnam war. I think history treats both presidents much more favorable than their contemporaries did...

I don't think that's right though. I think Johnson championing the civil rights bill basically lost the south to the democratic party for the next fourty years, and counting..... Those southern conservative voters which before 1964 always supported the Democrats, made previous democratic liberal administrations possible. Without that block the math just doesn't support nominating a liberal candiddate... Least it doesn't support them getting elected...

What do you think?

[luckydevil]

Can we take it back ( libertarians)?

[twa]

Because of modern liberals actions...Hell even most of them are too ashamed to name it and claim it.

Review their actions since 68

[Henry]

Review their actions since 68

Go ahead, sparky.

[twa]

Ladies first

[Califan007]

George Washington was a Liberal? lol...

And being a "radical" Republican does not automatically make you a Liberal.

I think you'd have to come up with better arguments than that to make your point...and the topic is a good one, actually. But, nah, claiming Washington and Lincoln are/were Liberals so the label shouldn't be avoided by present-day politicians doesn't quite cut it imo...

[twa]

He is referring to classical Liberalism, not what passes for it today.

[mardi gras skin]

The perception is that LIberals want to create a social Utopia and are willing to take away personal freedoms to achieve their goal.

[Califan007]

He is referring to classical Liberalism, not what passes for it today.
He's saying that FDR and George Washington were the same type of Liberal?

[twa]

He's saying that FDR and George Washington were the same type of Liberal?

Ask him, but progressive in front of it should give ya a clue

[thebluefood]

Because modern liberalism has a nasty reputation of being overbearing and preachy. It says "open mindedness" but if you deter away from that mentality just a wee bit, you're labeled as a narrow minded prick (whether you really are or not).

I don't think all liberals are that way, but that's probably why it's a "four letter word."

[Homercles82]

Liberal by today's definition is very different from classical liberals. I suggest looking up articles on it.

[Califan007]

Ask him, but progressive in front of it should give ya a clue

I get what he's attempting to say lol...but as I said earlier, using Washington and Lincoln to make his point isn't the way to go in my eyes. Classical Liberalism and Progressive Liberalism have enough divergent points to not really lump them under the same unbrella for debate's sake.

[JohnLockesGhost]

The most "liberal" (used in the correct way) president we've ever had was Thomas Jefferson. The dude was a radical.

[Califan007]

The most "liberal" (used in the correct way) president we've ever had was Thomas Jefferson. The dude was a radical.

What's the "correct way" to use the word "Liberal" when it comes to politics?

[HOF44]

I think the right has done a very good job of having liberal=socialist. Which makes you an anti-american rooskie if you claim the liberal tag. Some of the policies today that get labeled socialist are laughable. Try to raise taxes on upper income earners, you're a socialist. Look at the tax rates of this country in the 50's. No one was calling it socialistic then.

[JohnLockesGhost]

What's the "correct way" to use the word "Liberal" when it comes to politics?

Liberalism at the time the philosophy started to form during the enlightenment would encompass free-thinking. It involved a strong dislike and mistrust of authority, so it advocated devolving power and spreading it around. Liberals also have a more dismissive attitude toward history and tradition, and a tendency to favor their own reason over it. Without tradition and history in the way they are able to try new things.

[CrabR]

Because of modern liberals actions...Hell even most of them are too ashamed to name it and claim it.

Review their actions since 68

only balanced budget since 68/ So what has the other side done?

both are crooks neither deserve to be elected

[mardi gras skin]

The most "liberal" (used in the correct way) president we've ever had was Thomas Jefferson. The dude was a radical.

But was he "gay" (used the correct way)?

Seriously, all this angst wrapped up in what the word used to mean is irrelevant. Liberal, today, is associated with Socialism. There's a reason Democrats are abandoning that word.

[Predicto]

Why is Liberal a 4 letter word in Americna politics?

Because the GOP has spent the last 30 years making it into one. It was (and is) a conscious effort, and has been very effective.

[Califan007]

Why is Liberal a 4 letter word in Americna politics?

Because the GOP has spent the last 30 years making it into one. It was (and is) a conscious effort, and has been very effective.
It's too bad a few too many liberal politicians gave the GOP so much ammo to work with over that time span lol...

[SnyderShrugged]

I think it's sometimes seen as a negative because it's wrapped in with big government when in it's purest form it never could be

[twa]

I think the right has done a very good job of having liberal=socialist. Which makes you an anti-american rooskie if you claim the liberal tag. Some of the policies today that get labeled socialist are laughable. Try to raise taxes on upper income earners, you're a socialist. Look at the tax rates of this country in the 50's. No one was calling it socialistic then.

Well the progressive ones started adopting socialist programs and theology

Look at the growth of social spending since the 50's,and the expansion of communal responsibility vs individual empowerment and responsibility

ya don't want the socialist tag,don't push their policy...

[Ellis]

Because modern liberalism has a nasty reputation of being overbearing and preachy. It says "open mindedness" but if you deter away from that mentality just a wee bit, you're labeled as a narrow minded prick (whether you really are or not).

I don't think all liberals are that way, but that's probably why it's a "four letter word."

I agree with this.

It's like, "You can do whatever you want as long as you do what we tell you to."

[DjTj]

Well the progressive ones started adopting socialist programs and theology

Look at the growth of social spending since the 50's,and the expansion of communal responsibility vs individual empowerment and responsibilityWhy start in the 1950's? Why not the 1920's? Or the 1850's? Or the 1780's? Government has been growing, and we have been expanding communal responsibility since the Constitution was first ratified. It's part of the progress of civilization.

[HOF44]

Well the progressive ones started adopting socialist programs and theology

Look at the growth of social spending since the 50's,and the expansion of communal responsibility vs individual empowerment and responsibility

ya don't want the socialist tag,don't push their policy...

Socialism as a word is reallocation of income. I can't think of anything more socialistic that has happened in the US than the bailout of the banks. Not saying it was not beneficial to the US overall, but it was without a doubt socialist at its heart.

So the way I see it some policies with "socialistic" underpinnings can be good for the US as a whole. But that's a HUGE step from having a Socialist/Marxist form of government.

Really at the heart of any government is socialism. The government takes income from citizens and reallocates it for the good of all. Take away the power of any government to raise funds and it becomes useless.

[twa]

Why start in the 1950's? Why not the 1920's? Or the 1850's? Or the 1780's? Government has been growing, and we have been expanding communal responsibility since the Constitution was first ratified. It's part of the progress of civilization.

Until it declines and dies from the effects....but then they all die don't they?

He chose the 50's, , it certainly picked up speed in the late 60's

[elkabong82]

which civilizations have died from the effects of expanding communal responsibilities twa?

[JMS]

George Washington was a Liberal? lol...

George Washington was a revolutionary. He revolted against a monarchy in order to establish the first (modern?) republic. Doesn't get much more liberal than that.



And being a "radical" Republican does not automatically make you a Liberal.


Sure it does. Radical is the extreame political position on the left. synonomous with revolutionary.
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z180/tomorrowshorizon/politicalspectrum.jpg

Radical is a synonym with Revolutionary.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/radical

Revolutionary is a synonym with Radical
http://thesaurus.com/browse/revolutionary





I think you'd have to come up with better arguments than that to make your point...and the topic is a good one, actually. But, nah, claiming Washington and Lincoln are/were Liberals so the label shouldn't be avoided by present-day politicians doesn't quite cut it imo...

Washington was the father of the country... I think he's embraced by all parties... What marks him as a liberal / revolutionary is our nations founding... So I understand the controversy.. We can leave him out of the discussion.

Lincoln was absolutely 100% a liberal. As were all republicans in his day. I would argue lincolns stated principal of co-existing with slavery in order to avoid a civil war marks him as a moderate left liberal rather than a reactionary as his party labeled itself.

I wouldn't pin my argument though upon either them because they are so dated. Rather I would pin my arugment on TR FDR and Harry Truman. Two of our greatest presidents and one of our very great presidents because in their times the definition between liberal and conservative is not all that out of focus. Again I'm not presenting arguemnts for or against one political ideology. I'm asking why liberal today is a four letter word.

Seems to me liberals have done pretty well for this country, and conservatives are much more hit or miss.

[twa]

Socialism as a word is reallocation of income.

Really at the heart of any government is socialism. The government takes income from citizens and reallocates it for the good of all. Take away the power of any government to raise funds and it becomes useless.

Taxation is the reallocation of funds,,socialism is a manner of directing funds

[HOF44]

Taxation is the reallocation of funds,,socialism is a manner of directing funds

Don't quite get what your saying here, can you give a couple of examples?

[Burgold]

I think the answer has been well-covered. Mainly, it's due to the concerted effort of conservatives to denigrade and destroy the meaning of the world... Much in the same way they are trying to foist the thought that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery or that FDR was a horrible President who prolonged the Depression. Liberals were stupid enough to believe that few would buy the propaganda attack, but it has been so relentless and ruthless over twenty years, that the very definition of the word has become damaged.

It's never good to let your opponents define you.

Liberalism is a fine and necessary philosophy. Without it this country would have almost none of the ideals and freedoms that we cherish. Sadly, people tend to listen to those who scream loudest and longest... and heck, look at the Happy Meal thread for an example of trumped up, over the top rage, and ridiculousness. It's everpresent.

[elkabong82]

taxation is revenue collected from taxes, NOT it's allocation after

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxation

socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism?show=0&t=1288900004

[No_Pressure]

When liberal stopped being understood as a political viewpoint that supported using alternative means and methods of governing and new ideas, and began to be understood as a synonym for socialist which is a fiscal-social concept which may or may not be part of a liberal's viewpoint.

Its funny, when Thomas Jefferson was a radical liberal it was because he was completely breaking with conventional schools of thought on government and the social contract. He felt that the way nations were run restricted the freedom of their people and limited their abilities. He felt that a government which has too much control over people's lives should be completely destroyed and overthrown by the people of the nation, so it may be reformed to serve their best interests and so they may not have their natural freedom restricted. He favored small government and as little intervention by the government in the day to day working of the citizens as was possible while still maintaining some services and protection from threats or anarchy.

Today many people who identify themselves as liberal want to expand the scope and reach of the federal government to provide and control many goods and services which are privately owned. Many of them would support spending which would create or increase in size parts of the social safety net, as we saw in the health care debate. Liberals today however are so divided its hard to lump any of them into one particular group, but a lot of people are social liberals. Typically social liberals support legalization of illegal substances, supports unorthodox and non-traditional concepts of families or appropriate behavior, etc.

I would say that modern liberals are more like the conservatives of Thomas Jefferson's day such as Alexander Hamilton who supported a stronger national government, though they are a step further as nobody back then really dreamed of having the government control industries and provide a wide array of social services, etc. Then again theres always that great modern day argument "They had slaves, so therefore any good or bad ideas they had are moot because they didn't figure out that slavery was a bad idea!".

I don't even want to get into that argument. For the record I'm a mix of the Thomas Jefferson political liberal and the modern day social liberal in many respects...though I do think aborting babies is kinda ****ed up, and rather than letting gays marry I'd like to remove the government from controlling marriage and make everybody get a civil union recognized by the government and go to a church for the "marriage" word...

Wow I'm all over the place today, nobody respond to any of this :D

[JMS]

Liberalism at the time the philosophy started to form during the enlightenment would encompass free-thinking. It involved a strong dislike and mistrust of authority, so it advocated devolving power and spreading it around. Liberals also have a more dismissive attitude toward history and tradition, and a tendency to favor their own reason over it. Without tradition and history in the way they are able to try new things.

Liberals tend to favor new ideas when confronted with a problem. This leads to inovations and progress but is not a consistent mechanism for moving forward... New Ideas can also be untested ideas and result in error.

Conservatives tend to favor known solutions. when confronted with a problem they resort to what worked before. This leads to reliable solutions but styfles innovation.

From the founding fathers it was the liberals like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison who are credited for creating an entirely new form of government. Credit was given to conservatives like Alexander Hamilton for ensuring that new form of government worked.

Liberal and Conservative are the yin and yang of a healthy growing society. Remove liberalism you stagnate, remove conservatism the wheels eventually fall off.

[HOF44]

Taxation is the reallocation of funds,,socialism is a manner of directing funds


taxation is revenue collected from taxes, NOT it's allocation after

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxation

socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism?show=0&t=1288900004

The problem is ANY reallocation of funds with which the GOP disagrees with they label a socialist. When the reality is the control of production and distribution of goods by the government is actual socialism.

That's why any liberal allocation of resources today is labeled marxist. Thus attaching that meaning to the word liberal.

[MEANDWARF]

Because whenever the moderns liberals past more tax bills, we all say "Dang!"

[JMS]

Why is Liberal a 4 letter word in Americna politics?

Because the GOP has spent the last 30 years making it into one. It was (and is) a conscious effort, and has been very effective.

That explains why the GOP hates the word... but not why democrats do... Since Ike look who the Dems have run for President...


Kennedy... conservative... ( low taxes, strong defense, anti communist )
LBJ------------Liberal ,,,,,,,,,,,( snuck in after Kennedy was shot, hold over form the Roosevelt era )
Nixon......... moderate.........( Nixon ran as a conservative, but really is only conservative property was being anti communist).
Carter---------conservative.... ( an evangelical social and fiscal conservative from Georgia)
Reagan.......conservative
Bush..........moderate..........( Bush was a liberal republican chosen to balance the ticket by reagan... I think he ran the country as a moderate not an idealist).
Clinton--------moderate.........( put his finger to the wind on most issues. )
Bush II....... incompetent
Obama.......moderatre.........( very pragmatic policies )


We had 20 years of liberal and then except for the outlier johonson they just abruptly end., That has to do with both parties, not just the GOP.

[JMS]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxation

socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism?show=0&t=1288900004



Would it suprise you that socialism is actually the moderate left leaning position? That every democracy in the world other than the United States considers themselves to be socialist? Canada, Japan, France, Israel, Germany, even The United Kingdom...Tony Blaire had the charter of his political party changed to include the word socialist.....

When Americans hear socialist they think Communist or Nazi. Facts are Communisms is the extreme or radical left leaning philosophy.. Nazism or Fascism is the extreme right political philosophy.

[The Evil Genius]

The same people who made the term into a four letter word are now trying to paint any highly educated politician (or person in general) as elitist.

[nonniey]

I think the answer has been well-covered. Mainly, it's due to the concerted effort of conservatives to denigrade and destroy the meaning of the world... Much in the same way they are trying to foist the thought that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery ....
.

Look who is trying to define conservatives now. Conservatives are not trying foist the thought that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (Or at least the vast majority aren't - if I find two of more Liberals that argue that {and I bet I can}, can I claim that Liberals are trying foist that myth?)

[Darth Tater]

I mean if you look at our four greatest presidents they were all liberals...


Washington... a revolutionary... ( liberal).
Lincoln..... a "radical" republican... ( liberal )
Teddy Roosevelt... a self described progressive liberal.
Franklin Roosevelt...maybe the most liberal of them all.


America hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ in 1968.

I was wondering why? Why did all of the sudden liberals became unelectable in this country?

I was thinking it had to do with the last two liberals to hold office. Truman and LBJ. Both were terrible unpopular leaving office. Truman left office with historically low approval ratings, until GW Bush. Johnson also was terrible unpopular carrying the blame of the vietnam war. I think history treats both presidents much more favorable than their contemporaries did...

I don't think that's right though. I think Johnson championing the civil rights bill basically lost the south to the democratic party for the next fourty years, and counting..... Those southern conservative voters which before 1964 always supported the Democrats, made previous democratic liberal administrations possible. Without that block the math just doesn't support nominating a liberal candiddate... Least it doesn't support them getting elected...

What do you think?

Fact is that the sense that of the word liberal in terms of polotics as applied to men like Washington is nothing like the sense of the word as applied to either Roosevelt who were basically fascists.

[Burgold]

That explains why the GOP hates the word... but not why democrats do... Since Ike look who the Dems have run for President...


I think it's because the word has been poisoned so that many libs don't want to be associated with it for fear of getting stink on it. Liberalism, in its true form, is very worthy and noble. If you ask people these days what liberal means they'll probably say... higher taxes and socialism! Most, don't have a clue. Liberalism is about Liberty. Freedom.

If you think about it, it's why some libs get rankled by the Conservatives favorite catch phrase

"Freedom means not being free." which is the full version of "Freedom is not free" as they began denying civil rights, wire tapping, and due process.

[Burgold]

Look who is trying to define conservatives now. Conservatives are not trying foist the thought that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (Or at least the vast majority aren't - if I find two of more Liberals that argue that {and I bet I can}, can I claim that Liberals are trying foist that myth?)

Maybe it's a symptom of being on ES, but I hear this from conservative ESers on almost every thread about the South. I know you have too.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Its spin, that's all.

"Tax and Spend Liberal" is about as bad as it gets. But the other option, for the last 30 years has been "Spend and not tax conservative." I'm sure the latter is worse, but it hasn't been spun that way.

[Predicto]

Fact is that the sense that of the word liberal in terms of polotics as applied to men like Washington is nothing like the sense of the word as applied to either Roosevelt who were basically fascists.

Both Roosevelts were bascially fascists?

Umm, ok then.

[nonniey]

Maybe it's a symptom of being on ES, but I hear this from conservative ESers on almost every thread about the South. I know you have too.

Yes, but you also hear other ES conservatives calling BS on this myth as well.

[boobiemiles]

I mean if you look at our four greatest presidents they were all liberals...


Washington... a revolutionary... ( liberal).
Lincoln..... a "radical" republican... ( liberal )
Teddy Roosevelt... a self described progressive liberal.
Franklin Roosevelt...maybe the most liberal of them all.

I like this list. All these Presidents were in office at critical times in American History. How can you make reform without liberal ideals?
America hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ in 1968.

I was wondering why? Why did all of the sudden liberals became unelectable in this country?

I was thinking it had to do with the last two liberals to hold office. Truman and LBJ. Both were terrible unpopular leaving office. Truman left office with historically low approval ratings, until GW Bush. Johnson also was terrible unpopular carrying the blame of the vietnam war. I think history treats both presidents much more favorable than their contemporaries did...

I don't think that's right though. I think Johnson championing the civil rights bill basically lost the south to the democratic party for the next fourty years, and counting..... Those southern conservative voters which before 1964 always supported the Democrats, made previous democratic liberal administrations possible. Without that block the math just doesn't support nominating a liberal candiddate... Least it doesn't support them getting elected...

What do you think?

[twa]

taxation is revenue collected from taxes, NOT it's allocation after

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxation

socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism?show=0&t=1288900004

Taxing is not reallocation??? ....where did my money go then? :)

Yes there are numerous forms,levels and applications of socialism,including even Christianity

Those that do not empower the individual are cancerous.

.

[alexey]

My understanding is that "liberal" is a dirty word in American politics because of very successful and consistent application of media strategy and messaging by the right.

This consistent disinformation and misrepresentation campaign resulted in well meaning and otherwise rational people having completely bought into the big lie of the supposed "dark side" of liberalism.

[Woodhead]

The most "liberal" (used in the correct way) president we've ever had was Thomas Jefferson. The dude was a radical.

Kind of ironic considering what he wrote and fought for prior to holding office too :-p I always consider Jefferson politics first hypocrite. Talk one way to get yourself in office, then act another. For the life of me, I never understood the man, was all of the writings prior to being elected king. . .er. . .president ;-)

[Predicto]

Kind of ironic considering what he wrote and fought for prior to holding office too :-p I always consider Jefferson politics first hypocrite. Talk one way to get yourself in office, then act another. For the life of me, I never understood the man, was all of the writings prior to being elected king. . .er. . .president ;-)

Be careful now. We have some Tailgaters who worship at the shrine of Jefferson (well, at the shrine of Jefferson as they imagine him to be :ols: )

[Veretax]

In this case, the word Liberal has changed and been corrupted in meaning in the last century or so, especially after the Progressives co opted the term

[Woodhead]

Be careful now. We have some Tailgaters who worship at the shrine of Jefferson (well, at the shrine of Jefferson as they imagine him to be :ols: )

Yea I bet you do :-) I was actually surprised to see someone call him a liberal, usually people equate him to a libertarian of which he is nothing of the sort.

[PeterMP]

Because Reagan managed to place the lack of economic growth on the liberal policies of LBJ in the late 60's and to a lesser extent the New Deal by FDR.

[CrabR]

it is a dirty word because of tv/radio talk shows

Hate sells

[Woodhead]

Hate sells

It also wins many battles, but loses every war. Hate leads to blindness, and blindness leads to bad decisions, it is really that simple. Just look at the advancement of civilization in the time of people we knew. Over the past 100 years, people no longer look at minorities from Europe as bad, we look at them as Americans. It is the same thing that our future generations will look at and think why did we discriminate against gay people, or Hispanics or for cripes sakes Islam. Hate always looses in the end, They may win battles, as the Becks and Tea Party did this past election, but the overall war is won because the side of humanity is the right side to be on time and time again. Why, because treating everyone equally is the best way to advance a society.

[JMS]

Fact is that the sense that of the word liberal in terms of polotics as applied to men like Washington is nothing like the sense of the word as applied to either Roosevelt who were basically fascists.

fascism is the extreme right political philosophy. Comunism would be the extreme left political philosophy. The Roosevelt boys were liberals. Moderate lefties, the equivalent of the moderate right position, conservative like Reagan.

[HighOnHendrix]

Liberal by today's definition is very different from classical liberals. I suggest looking up articles on it.

This. Kennedy would be a Republican if he ran today. I believe the first thing he did when he took office was to cut taxes.

Answer to OP: Because liberals are for abortion and against the death penalty. They stand for tax and spend, gun "control", and letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself. Kill babies but keep murderers alive? Take firearms from law-abiding citizens? Run up the deficit on purpose? Government mandates, handouts, and heavy regulation? Who wants to admit to any of that?

[Burgold]

This. Kennedy would be a Republican if he ran today. I believe the first thing he did when he took office was to cut taxes.

Answer to OP: Because liberals are for abortion and against the death penalty. They stand for tax and spend, gun "control", and letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself. Kill babies but keep murderers alive? Take firearms from law-abiding citizens? Run up the deficit on purpose? Government mandates, handouts, and heavy regulation? Who wants to admit to any of that?

Interestingly, I think Reagan would be classified as a liberal today... or at least more of a RINO than McCain.

[twa]

Interestingly, I think Reagan would be classified as a liberal today... or at least more of a RINO than McCain.

Certainly not by liberals...just his name still makes them irrational:)

It is interesting how definitions continually change as do perceptions.

[Burgold]

It is interesting how definitions continually change as do perceptions.

I agree.

But Reagan was a huge spender, deficit gathering, hollywood loving supporter of the National Endowment of the Arts. His wife was into astrology. They believed in public education more than private. Reagan enjoyed talking with our enemies and was anti-isolation, treated terrorism as a crime and not an act of war. etc. etc. Except for the hawkishness, Reagan, by modern conservative definition would be a liberal.

[twa]

So why wasn't he embraced by liberals?:evilg:

Overlooking a few things?

[Devastate]

Because ***** is five letters

[Burgold]

So why wasn't he embraced by liberals?:evilg:

Overlooking a few things?

Fine... he supported Sadam and Iraq and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He was a major deregulator. Undid a lot of environmental protections and set back alternative energy research by decades!

So, I guess he did have a few conservative traits.

:D

[Seabee1973]

Taxing is not reallocation??? ....where did my money go then? :)

Yes there are numerous forms,levels and applications of socialism,including even Christianity

Those that do not empower the individual are cancerous.

.

Sorry christianity and socialism shouldnt be in the same sentance

[twa]

Sorry christianity and socialism shouldnt be in the same sentance

Jesus taught a form of it for His people...trying to expand those concepts to all is a error I agree.

Kinda like Jesus was a liberal....just not as it is defined now.:ols:

[Burgold]

Jesus taught a form of it for His people...trying to expand those concepts to all is a error I agree.

Kinda like Jesus was a liberal....just not as it is defined now.:ols:

Heck... a lot of things in the U.S. are socialist. Some we don't think of. Public education is one of the purist forms of socialism. The U.S. Military is another... reallocation of resources from the many to serve the government and protect all equally. The military only exists because of socialism.

[JMS]

In this case, the word Liberal has changed and been corrupted in meaning in the last century or so, especially after the Progressives co opted the term
T
I disagree that the meaning of the word has changed. Issues have changed but not the meaning of the words. The basic premise of left/liberals seeking new solutions and conservatives or those on the right seeking known tried and proven solutions is consistant all the way back to the Roman Kato 2000 years ago.

[twa]

No they only exist because of capitalists...ya heretic :)

[mardi gras skin]

Heck... a lot of things in the U.S. are socialist.

According to twa's link elsewhere, nearly half of the US economy is now socialist. If that stat is right, we have become more socialist than Germany and Britain in the last few years.

Given that shift under democrat governance, you can see where one would equate the world "liberal" with "socialist".

[JMS]

This. Kennedy would be a Republican if he ran today. I believe the first thing he did when he took office was to cut taxes.

John Kennedy was certainly a conservative as you note. I disagree that he would necessarily be a republican if he ran today... The whole point of the thread is most of the Democrat leaders since Truman have been conservative or moderates... Our last real liberal democratic president was more than 40 years ago. LBJ.....

Also if you look at our greatest presidents... Washington, Lincoln, TR, and FDR; they were all liberals; but two of them were Republicans. It's kind of pointless to claim they would be democrats if they ran today... Heck the Republican party was founded as an extreme left wing party who's sole issue was the abolition of slavery at any cost.... The RADICAL Republicans.





Answer to OP: Because liberals are for abortion and against the death penalty. They stand for tax and spend, gun "control", and letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself. Kill babies but keep murderers alive? Take firearms from law-abiding citizens? Run up the deficit on purpose? Government mandates, handouts, and heavy regulation? Who wants to admit to any of that?

History doesn't support your assertion. Before Reagan neither party favored making abortions illegal. Besides the problem with liberals occured what 25 years before Reagan?
As for Tax and Spend..liberals would call that "pay as you go", rather than borrowing from your grandkids... Something most Americans support...

Fire arms was a failed Clinton innitiative..... No Democrat is going to make that mistake again. It cost them dearly. Obama hasn't tried to create any new gun control policies..



Run up the deficit on purpose? Government mandates, handouts, and heavy regulation? Who wants to admit to any of that?

Only of our current 13 trillion dollar debt, about 10-11 trillion of it was wracked up under three Repubican Presidents. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II... So you are wrong in claiming the democrats favor running up deficits.

[Burgold]

According to twa's link elsewhere, nearly half of the US economy is now socialist. If that stat is right, we have become more socialist than Germany and Britain in the last few years.

Given that shift under democrat governance, you can see where one would equate the world "liberal" with "socialist".

Disclosure... haven't clicked twa's link, but I suspect a lot of this socialism has been around much longer than two or four years. Regardless, not all socialism is bad, evil, or even wrong. Just as not all capitalism is good, productive, or best.

[JMS]

Interestingly, I think Reagan would be classified as a liberal today... or at least more of a RINO than McCain.

I think the entire RINO thing was a strategy to enforce party disipline inside the GOP. One of the few skills necessary for good government which GW's team excelled at. Thus I think it's tenants as are some of GW's policies going to be more closely associated with Bush; rather than defining the word conservative......

[JMS]

Disclosure... haven't clicked twa's link, but I suspect a lot of this socialism has been around much longer than two or four years. Regardless, not all socialism is bad, evil, or even wrong. Just as not all capitalism is good, productive, or best..

Yep, I believe healthcare is nearly 20% of the economy. They must be counting healthcare as socialist now because of Obama care.... It's like those tea party wonks chantning at their ralliies, "keep the government's hands off our medicare". The reality is healthcare has been a heavily regulated nich of the economy since 1948. Obama care didn't create a new system; all it did was tweak the broken government run system we already had.

Anybody claiming the US is more socialist than Germany, France or the UK has never travelled abroad.. And they aren't very well read on our current events either.

[alexey]

I'm so tired of people using the word "socialist" as if it has a definitive meaning.

[twa]

I'm so tired of people using the word "socialist" as if it has a definitive meaning.

But isn't that why it gets used so much?

It is a catchall phrase,kinda like liberal or conservative

[alexey]

But isn't that why it gets used so much?
Yes its ambiguity made it useful for political purposes.


It is a catchall phrase,kinda like liberal or conservative
The "socialism" catchall phrase usually catches too many confusions to be meaningful. For example, how many people confuse owning vs. controlling vs. regulating means of production? How many people would claim that socialism is about redistribution of wealth, yet fail to recognize that any form of taxation constitutes redistribution of wealth?

[twa]

The govt bought control of GM and Citicorp as two major examples

from 3/09

We're left hoping that the Germans and the French talk some sense into President Obama at the G-20 summit, since they've already signaled that they have no interest in the further deficit spending that he's requesting. What an irony that would be—to be told by two of the biggest welfare-state economies in the world that we're spending too much. Who would have guessed that the nation that brought us the French Revolution would be the one telling us we've gone too far?
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/03/30/am-i-the-last-capitalist-obama-falters-on-rick-wagoner-gm-and-the-auto-industry-.html

added
alexey socialism is defined by where that money is directed.

[alexey]

The govt bought control of GM and Citicorp as two major examples
There you go, those are real examples of socialism.



from 3/09

We're left hoping that the Germans and the French talk some sense into President Obama at the G-20 summit, since they've already signaled that they have no interest in the further deficit spending that he's requesting. What an irony that would be—to be told by two of the biggest welfare-state economies in the world that we're spending too much. Who would have guessed that the nation that brought us the French Revolution would be the one telling us we've gone too far?
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/03/30/am-i-the-last-capitalist-obama-falters-on-rick-wagoner-gm-and-the-auto-industry-.html
So what's your definition of a "welfare-state" and what's your take on how it relates to "socialism"?

[twa]

There you go, those are real examples of socialism.


So what's your definition of a "welfare-state" and what's your take on how it relates to "socialism"?

I know it when I see it

However best benefits me at the time

:ols: ambiguity is nice

[alexey]

I know it when I see it

However best benefits me at the time

:ols: ambiguity is nice
Thanks for being honest. Yeah I know that you are not confused yourself, you just willfully perpetrate and encourage the confusion of others... you are the assistant of the :evilg:

:D

[twa]

You give me too much credit...people are already confused

Would ya like me to define truth as well?...it too usually changes with perception,perspective and time.

[alexey]

You give me too much credit...people are already confused

Would ya like me to define truth as well?...it too usually changes with perception,perspective and time.
Ambiguity and confusion is how you end up voting for GOP's narrative and getting GOP's actions. twa gets some credit for his role in that.

I am really hoping that this time is different.

[Dan T.]

Liberalism is an ideology built on lies. Liberalism is a lie! Liberals do not use their minds. Devisive attacks on liberals mean the truth. Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box. These are some of the meanest, most vile people in the country -- the supporters of the Democrat Party and the Obama ticket. They are deranged, they are unhinged, and they are genuinely dangerous, but the media will only praise them as being 'activists' and 'involved'. Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make. You just see suffering and say, 'Oh, I feel so horrible!' Liberal Democrats are inexorably opposed to tax cuts, because tax cuts give people more power, and take away from the role of government.

Etc.

Rush Limbaugh

[twa]

Ambiguity and confusion is how you end up voting for GOP's narrative and getting GOP's actions. twa gets some credit for his role in that.

I am really hoping that this time is different.

I'll accept mine if you will for the Dems :pfft:

Ambiguity and confusion is a great description for recent legislation

I think we bet on hope last time didn't we?

[Burgold]

I'll accept mine if you will for the Dems :pfft:

Ambiguity and confusion is a great description for recent legislation

I think we bet on hope last time didn't we?

To get spiritual on you

We didn't give hope much of a chance.

[twa]

To get spiritual on you

We didn't give hope much of a chance.

To get realistic with you it has two more yrs.....I'm certainly hoping for Change

[alexey]

I'll accept mine if you will for the Dems :pfft:
I have and always will continue to accept full responsibility for my rhetoric and votes.


Ambiguity and confusion is a great description for recent legislation
What is so ambiguous and confusing about the SPEECH Act of 2010? :pfft:


I think we bet on hope last time didn't we?
Personally, I made a cold hard dispassionate calculation when choosing to vote for the best available candidate. :cool:

(obviously I also made sure that he did not automatically disqualify himself by failing to meet my minimum acceptance criteria)

[Baculus]

Liberal has become a "four-letter" word due to a decades-long campaign by conservatives to demonize liberalism and its adherents . . . even though modern conservatism has glommed onto economic liberalism.

Today's welfare liberals are still liberals: they just believe that out-of-control corporations need to be regulated, and they have a "positivist" view on social issues. Otherwise, they share many of the same views on individual liberty as classic liberals -- the root word is "liberal," after all.

America, at its heart, is a liberal country. It was founded on liberal ideas, and no matter how much the right-wing tries to deny this reality, it won't change, as long as the U.S. exists as a constitutional republic.

[Baculus]

Sorry christianity and socialism shouldnt be in the same sentance

Why not? Many Christians have been socialists, from early Christians sharing their possessions, to monks living in communal abbeys, to socialist Christians in the 19th century onward (including the one who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance).

To emphasize material wealth and atomistic individualism, as many on the Right preach, doesn't sound entirely Christian, if you ask me.

[Baculus]

This. Kennedy would be a Republican if he ran today. I believe the first thing he did when he took office was to cut taxes.

Answer to OP: Because liberals are for abortion and against the death penalty.

And yet Republicans support the death penalty but oppose abortions . . . while opposing health care expansion for those who cannot get the medical help they need.


They stand for tax and spend

As opposed to the borrow-and-spend of the GOP? Most of our nation's debt is due to the GOP and such borrowing.

BTW, EVERY government that taxes money from its citizens and spends it taxes and spends. That's why the phrase is ridiculous when used as an ad hominem. Unless you're telling me that taxes have been abolished, along with governmental spending . . .


. . .gun "control

I oppose most gun control, but there are a lot of people who see the need for some gun regulation. Also, there are a fair number of pro-firearm liberals.


and letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself.

Oh, sort of like the legislative moralizing from the right-wing Republicans?

Most liberals are perfectly happy to let people do what they want, with a social laissez-fair attitude.


Kill babies but keep murderers alive?

Complete hyperbole. Liberals don't "kill babies." It is a very personal decision when a woman decides to have a baby -- it is her choice.

But what were you saying a second ago? ". . . letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself." But that is exactly what you and other conservatives want to do: you want the government to make choices for women because you don't think they are smart enough to make their own decisions.

That's a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.


Take firearms from law-abiding citizens?

Well, I am not sure if this is so accurate. There aren't massive gun seizures taking place, and Obama has not tried to restrict firearm ownership, as some on the Right would claim.


Run up the deficit on purpose?

I am sorry -- what?


Government mandates, handouts, and heavy regulation?

Mandates, handouts, and regulation have also been aspects of conservative rule. They just mandate what they want, hand out money to whom they support, and regulate where they see fit.


Who wants to admit to any of that?

I have a long, long laundry list for the Right -- the sad point, though, is that they are proud to be hypocritical authoritarians.

[HighOnHendrix]

Fine... he supported Sadam and Iraq and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He was a major deregulator. Undid a lot of environmental protections and set back alternative energy research by decades!

So, I guess he did have a few conservative traits.

:D

Don't forget how he busted up that air-traffic controller strike in 81.




Only of our current 13 trillion dollar debt, about 10-11 trillion of it was wracked up under three Repubican Presidents. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II... So you are wrong in claiming the democrats favor running up deficits.

Even though the President does submit a budget every year, it's Congress that actually spends the money. Most of those sessions of Congress were D controlled. As we have all noted, things change constantly and the last R session betrayed conservatives in a big way. The next one might, too. We'll see.

[HighOnHendrix]

BTW, EVERY government that taxes money from its citizens and spends it taxes and spends. That's why the phrase is ridiculous when used as an ad hominem. Unless you're telling me that taxes have been abolished, along with governmental spending . . .

It is a ridiculous phrase...but everyone knows exactly what it means nonetheless. My position is that I would like to see a balanced budget regardless of what party makes it happen.



I oppose most gun control, but there are a lot of people who see the need for some gun regulation. Also, there are a fair number of pro-firearm liberals.

I see the need for regulation as well. People can't just be running around nilly-willy with guns. My problem with it is that hardcore gun control advocates' zeal against firearms turns the issue into gun abolition.



Most liberals are perfectly happy to let people do what they want, with a social laissez-fair attitude.

Really? Well then I guess we should be able to without the following: EPA, EEOC, EAC, OSHA, FTC, SEC, NRC, PRC, NTSB, NLRB, NCUA, FDA, FCC, DEA, ATF, FBI, IRS, FAA, FHA, etc. etc. ad nauseum. This much government is not laissez-faire.



Complete hyperbole. Liberals don't "kill babies." It is a very personal decision when a woman decides to have a baby -- it is her choice.

But what were you saying a second ago? ". . . letting the government make your choices for you because you are too stupid make them for yourself." But that is exactly what you and other conservatives want to do: you want the government to make choices for women because you don't think they are smart enough to make their own decisions.

That's a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.

If that's a choice, then it's cool if I shoot my boss in the head, right? I don't want him around so I'll just kill him. It's cool, though, because it's my choice. It's about sanctity of human life, regardless of its point of development. You either get it or you don't.

[HighOnHendrix]

Personally, I made a cold hard dispassionate calculation when choosing to vote for the best available candidate. :cool:

(obviously I also made sure that he did not automatically disqualify himself by failing to meet my minimum acceptance criteria)

It seems to me that the American public has not voted for anyone for quite some time. We just vote against whoever has pissed us off the most recently.

[JMS]

Even though the President does submit a budget every year, it's Congress that actually spends the money. Most of those sessions of Congress were D controlled. As we have all noted, things change constantly and the last R session betrayed conservatives in a big way. The next one might, too. We'll see.


So to paraphrase your argument.... We don't elect Democrats to the Presidency because they run up debt. However we excuse republicans from running up about 5 times as much debt as democrats because we place the blame for debt on congress? No double standard there.

By the way if you take away the last three years under Pelosi the Republicans had run up about 1 trillion more in debt in control of the house over 12 years as the Democrats had in controlling the house 15 years.

[Beans]

So to paraphrase your argument.... We don't elect Democrats to the Presidency because they run up debt. However we excuse republicans from running up about 5 times as much debt as democrats because we place the blame for debt on congress? No double standard there.

By the way if you take away the last three years under Pelosi the Republicans had run up about 1 trillion more in debt in control of the house over 12 years as the Democrats had in controlling the house 15 years.

Not counting for inflation of course.

[twa]

By the way if you take away the last three years under Pelosi

I wish :)
Interesting math though...did ya take pelosi's class on paying unemployment is stimulus?

[Beans]

So to paraphrase your argument.... We don't elect Democrats to the Presidency because they run up debt. However we excuse republicans from running up about 5 times as much debt as democrats because we place the blame for debt on congress? No double standard there.

By the way if you take away the last three years under Pelosi the Republicans had run up about 1 trillion more in debt in control of the house over 12 years as the Democrats had in controlling the house 15 years.

Not counting for inflation of course.

[LApunkrocker72]

I think the answer has been well-covered. Mainly, it's due to the concerted effort of conservatives to denigrade and destroy the meaning of the world... Much in the same way they are trying to foist the thought that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery or that FDR was a horrible President who prolonged the Depression. Liberals were stupid enough to believe that few would buy the propaganda attack, but it has been so relentless and ruthless over twenty years, that the very definition of the word has become damaged.

It's never good to let your opponents define you.

Liberalism is a fine and necessary philosophy. Without it this country would have almost none of the ideals and freedoms that we cherish. Sadly, people tend to listen to those who scream loudest and longest... and heck, look at the Happy Meal thread for an example of trumped up, over the top rage, and ridiculousness. It's everpresent.

Great post, Burgold. :applause:

[stevemcqueen1]

George Washington was a Liberal? lol...

And being a "radical" Republican does not automatically make you a Liberal.

I think you'd have to come up with better arguments than that to make your point...and the topic is a good one, actually. But, nah, claiming Washington and Lincoln are/were Liberals so the label shouldn't be avoided by present-day politicians doesn't quite cut it imo...

Lincoln was most DEFINITELY a progressive. By God isn't that obvious? Liberals definitely get to claim him.

Also I'd consider Washington a pretty progressive guy. So was Jefferson--a true renaissance man progressive and intellectual.

And Bill Clinton doesn't count as a liberal? We're claiming him too.

[Woodhead]

It seems to me that the American public has not voted for anyone for quite some time. We just vote against whoever has pissed us off the most recently.

Were you asleep 2 years ago? I guess that is your point of view, but with me, I voted FOR Obama, not against something.

That is where the GOP's biggest problem is, they are the party that isn't FOR anything, they are the party that is AGAINST progress. It has been going on through out history, the same battle. You have the side of progress, and the side of keeping everything the same. The ones that want to keep everything the same are the ones with the most money. There is no coincidence scientific innovation was completely stifled for 1600 years when you had oligarchies using religion to suppress the populations. The fight is no different today, but progress has been made so far as to which we can say the separation of social classes was a thing of the past. Unfortunately, many want to bring that to the future, and that is what "progressives" fight against.

[Woodhead]

Lincoln was most DEFINITELY a progressive. By God isn't that obvious? Liberals definitely get to claim him.

Also I'd consider Washington a pretty progressive guy. So was Jefferson--a true renaissance man progressive and intellectual.

And Bill Clinton doesn't count as a liberal? We're claiming him too.

OK, we claim Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, FDR, Obama. . .they get Hoover, the Bushes, Nixon, and Reagan. Yep I think that is about right don't you :D

[Seabee1973]

Why not? Many Christians have been socialists, from early Christians sharing their possessions, to monks living in communal abbeys, to socialist Christians in the 19th century onward (including the one who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance).

To emphasize material wealth and atomistic individualism, as many on the Right preach, doesn't sound entirely Christian, if you ask me.

Many christians were not socialists and Jesus never preached socialism when i help someone out is not socialism when the government takes from me and gives to you that is socialism. big difference.

[HOF44]

when the government takes from me and gives to you that is socialism. big difference.

So is any government not socialist, by that definition?

[mardi gras skin]

Why not? Many Christians have been socialists, from early Christians sharing their possessions, to monks living in communal abbeys, to socialist Christians in the 19th century onward (including the one who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance).
Christians affirm a communalism in the same way a family affirms communalism. Brothers and sisters are interdependent and that includes an economic interdependence. Modern socialism which affirms economic interdependency with out the corresponding familial/relational bonds loses its relationship to the early Church.


To emphasize material wealth and atomistic individualism, as many on the Right preach, doesn't sound entirely Christian, if you ask me.
The early church was highly independent from the state. The "individualism" of the early church drove Emperor Julian nuts.

But you're right. The "atomistic individualism" our culture and many of our churches hold dear would have been abhorrent to the early church. The way individualism is usually understood, it runs counter to the idea of the "family of God."

[stevemcqueen1]

OK, we claim Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, FDR, Obama. . .they get Hoover, the Bushes, Nixon, and Reagan. Yep I think that is about right don't you :D

Don't forget we get Teddy. We'll also take Andrew Jackson. The way he handled the Nullification crisis strikes me as pretty progressive. To even out the teams, conservatives can have Andrew Johnson. :evilg:

And if we get to count non-presidents, then Ben Franklin was definitely a liberal :D

[Woodhead]

Don't forget we get Teddy. We'll also take Andrew Jackson. The way he handled the Nullification crisis strikes me as pretty progressive. To even out the teams, conservatives can have Andrew Johnson. :evilg:

And if we get to count non-presidents, then Ben Franklin was definitely a liberal :D

Oh yea, I almost forgot, the great JC was the worlds first liberal! :ols:

lest see. . .Darwin, Plato, Jesus, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Obama, Teddy R, not a bad list at all. The conservatives get Reagan, Nixon (but we have Carter to even that one out), the Bushes, Ghengis Khan, Caeser, Hitler (we get Stalin, I'll call it a push), Constantine, Napolean, they get Idi Amin, and we get Pol Pot, they get radical Islamic terrorists, we get Che Gueverra, yea I kind of like how our side stands in this one:ols:

I remember a time when I thought I was a conservative, that was before I became self aware and started to actually look at what was voted on, and how the things effected the country. It's funny though, my belief system has not changed, it is the parties that have. The GOP is as far right as I could ever imagine, and the left is a complete centrist party historically speaking. Obama is trying to move the party left, but there are too many Barney Franks in there to allow him to stray into economical doom, and that is a good thing. I like how much was accomplished, and I am proud to declare myself a liberal. In fact, I may for the first time, change my affiliation from non-declared to liberal.

[Woodhead]

Many christians were not socialists and Jesus never preached socialism when i help someone out is not socialism when the government takes from me and gives to you that is socialism. big difference.

ummmm, Jesus was indeed a socialist, and the entire roman catholic church is socialistic in nature. At the core, the group takes from those that have and redistributes the money through it's channels to those that do not (while skimming a nice % off the top I might add). That in a crux is what socialism is all about no?

[mardi gras skin]

I'd put the Thomas Jefferson antifederalists in todays republican/conservative camp and the Alexander Hamilton federalists in todays democrat/liberal camp.

[mardi gras skin]

ummmm, Jesus was indeed a socialist, and the entire roman catholic church is socialistic in nature.

Early Christians were very generous with more than just money. They'd even tend to plague victims when no one else would touch them. But they didn't make generosity compulsory. Each one gave to the poor as he or she saw fit.

[twa]

Early Christians were very generous with more than just money. They'd even tend to plague victims when no one else would touch them. But they didn't make generosity compulsory. Each one gave to the poor as he or she saw fit.

A important distinction that is overlooked

[mardi gras skin]

A important distinction that is overlooked

Yeah, but the greadiest of those early Christ followers would put most modern Christians to shame with their generosity...an important distinction many modern Christians happily overlook. :ols:

[mardi gras skin]

If modern Christians were less concerned with "fair" and more concerned with caring for their neighbors, there wouldn't be a roll for socialism in America.

[twa]

If modern Christians were less concerned with "fair" and more concerned with caring for their neighbors, there wouldn't be a roll for socialism in America.

Yes,but they need to look into themselves to correct that,not pass it off

[stevemcqueen1]

I'd put the Thomas Jefferson antifederalists in todays republican/conservative camp and the Alexander Hamilton federalists in todays democrat/liberal camp.

Really, all of the founding fathers qualify as progressives because of the nature of what they were creating.

But Jefferson was a true progressive man who did not hold the "orthodox" understanding of the world that is the cornerstone of a conservative ideology. He was a liberal in the classic sense of the term. I mean, why else is he being written out of schoolbooks in Texas?