American Liberalism

[skywalker]

Can someone tell me when being a liberal in the USA became such stigma. It seems like it is a slanderous title that no one should ever admit to being. The political community in the USA seems to look down on it. It does appear to be better to be a moderate or conservative, but never liberal.

Hmmmm....

Mark

[Animal]

Just a wild shot in the dark here, but I'd guess it probably dates back to the cold war and the "Red Witch Hunt."
Liberalism was probably considered to be borderline communism and thus was shunned by many, not because of their political views, but more for fear of being shunned and ridiculed.

[Gregster]

Would I be correct in assuming that your assertion that liberalism carries a stigma is somehow related to you being one?

I wasn't aware that being liberal was so unpopular. If it was, the media and certainly the entertainment industry would not be so thoroughly and unabashedly liberal; I can think of 3, maybe 4 self-identified conservatives in Hollywood (Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Arnold Schawrzenegger and Robert Duvall) but cannot even begin to keep track of every actor, musician, or TV talking head who fawn over all the wonderful, caring things liberals do while portraying anything conservatives support (like lowering my friggin' taxes and letting me keep a gun in my house to defend myself from crimminals) as evidence of the rise of the Fourth Reich in America.

Politcally, I am a libertarian: conservative in my view of the role of government, but quite frankly liberal on social issues like drug legalization, abortion, and gay rights. Both Republicans and Democrats tend to annoy me, but I have so far voted Republican simply because they irritate me less and-- more importantly-- when they come up with stupid ideas they usually don't expect me to pay for them.

If there is a growing backlash angainst liberals, I would ascribe it to Mr. and Mrs. Average spending the last three decades having liberal ideas shoved down their throats. Conservatives will say you should not do certain things, but liberals will piously tell you that you can't and furthermore (as we see with PC speech codes and hate crimes legislation) back it up with legislative fiat. No conservative has run anyone off a college campus or out of a job because they said or admitted to thinking something that was unpopular (especially to liberals); you cannot say this about liberals.

I think it would also have something to do with the fact that liberals themselves has utterly corrupted and bastardized the very word "liberal." To me, "liberal" implies being open to new ideas and opposing viewpoints-- liberals claim this about themselves while accusing conservatives of being stiff and narrow-minded. Yet I've never seen the campus Young Republicans show up at a lecture given by an invited speaker and prevent that person from being heard by booing, shrieking, yelling, and being otherwise disruptive. I've likewise never heard of conservative college kids rounding up stacks of campus publications that contain ideas they disagree with and chucking them into dumpsters; I've noticed liberal college kids doing this repeatedly (including at my alma mater, more than once). And in the marketplace of ideas, conservatives might tell you that you're wrong or misinformed or even just plain stupid for taking a certain position, but at least they don't seek to snuff out opposing views by baldly stating that your beliefs are SURELY rooted in the fact that you're a racist, sexist, homophobic ogre who hates puppies and kittens and little kids.

[Azred]

American political liberalism, from what I have seen, heard, and read, is more than a mere political agendum. Rather, it is a belief system to whom advocates dedicate their entire lives and energies to attain. I'm not saying that conservatives are different, but liberals seem to be more zealous and overtly enthusiastic. In short, conservatives think they are correct from an logical/academic point of view while liberals feel that they are correct from their heart.

Excessive intellectualism aside, liberals in America have the reputation of wanting only to increase taxes on citizens, create large governmental agencies, and rely on the power of inertia to stay in power. Much of this reputation is well-founded, since it is typically what happens when liberals gain political power. Also, they claim the moral high ground at the earliest opportunity.

To answer the main question...traditionally liberals in America focus more on domestic problems like education, employment, and social services than on economic/fiscal policy, foreign policy, and defense. Because America was so successful in World War II and enjoyed such success afterwards, those who did not focus on foreign policy or defense were seen as weak. Also, because the easiest way to shift money to domestic programs is to cut the defense budget, liberals were seen as nearly anti-American. The stigma lasted for decades, so that today the word "liberal" is crippling politically. A favored tactic of conservatives is to call someone liberal--repetition becomes reality.

Liberals often have good intentions but attempt to carry out their plans poorly. For instance, remember the Clinton's attempts to design a national health care plan? Sounds great--give everyone health insurance. In reality, what this would have done would be to nationalize the health insurance industry (driving all providers out of business), put many people in that industry out of a job, and raise taxes (how else are you going to have the government pay for the subsidized premium?). I have worked in the health insurance industry; only once did I ever see a plan's premium decrease. What need was there for this, when Medicare (with its own problems) already exists?

I would go into the foibles of conservatism, but that is not the subject of this thread.

[LordKathen]

refering to Gregster...

Well, I was with you up to the last statement. Have you ever listened to Michael Savage on AM radio? Perfect example of an "independent" who does nothing but bash liberals, calling us racist perverts with no brains. He is very conservative in all his political, social, and personel views. Im not sure why he calls himself an independent. I thinks its becouse he knows that conservatives are just as bashed, so he's playing the switzerland role.
I heard him say one day, that all athiests are pedophile perverts.

[ 12-20-2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[Gregster]

Originally posted by LordKathen: refering to Gregster... Well, I was with you up to the last statement. Have you ever listened to Michael Savage on AM radio? Perfect example of an "independent" who does nothing but bash liberals, calling us racist perverts with no brains. He is very conservative in all his political, social, and personel views. Im not sure why he calls himself an independent. I thinks its becouse he knows that conservatives are just as bashed, so he's playing the switzerland role. I heard him say one day, that all athiests are pedophile perverts.

Well, I can't say I've heard of the fellow. Then again, I'm willing to believe this since-- I tried to convey this, maybe I didn't-- the conservative end of the political spectrum has its share of mindless twerps and smug buttheads. Fact is, I've no major quarrel with most people regardless of their political beliefs-- it's the zealots on either side of the fence I can't stomach.

I used to identify myself as "conservative," until I gradually came to realize that my definition of "conservative" was not quite in line with high-profile conservative politicians and opinionists. Sometimes slightly, sometimes entirely. I used to G. Gordon Liddy's program religiously for no other reason than it was a welcome antidote to much of the sheer, bald-faced far-left liberalism I find in the media. However, as time went on and I got used to the novelty, I found myself rolling my eyes at much of what he was saying, even the stuff I sort of agreed with. I think Ollie North-- from what jarhead to another-- is more than a little loopy, and even though I agree with some of his politics I made a point not to vote for him when he sought office in my (former) home state of Virginia. And Rush Limbaugh needs to be taken out back somewhere and beaten with a heavy club.

As I mentioned before, even though I sort of "feel" conservative compared to a lot of people, I must not be. I am in favor of legal abortions, legal drugs, and extension of full social rights to gays for the same reason I support gun ownership, lower taxes, and the abolition of affirmative action/preference programs of any type: to me, true conservsatism means a tiny government that keeps the roads paved and the Army trained and otherwise butts the hell outta my business. Many so-called conservatives have been using government as the bully pulpit to advance moral and social agendas the same way liberals so often do.

I voted for Bush in 2000 not because I thought he was amaster statesman or a brilliant leader but mostly because there was no friggin' way I was gonna face the prospect of President Gore sitting on my butt doing nothing. Barring any such future races, I plan to cast votes for Libertarian candidates-- if only on principal, since they don't win much-- since they are in favor of government doing what government ought to do: very little, only the things I can't do myself, and with as much of my money as necessary. I don't trust government as it ultimately runs on perverse incentives; Libertarian government is less apt to screw things up since they favor no new government programs (indeed, the abolition of many current ones).

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

As I mentioned before, even though I sort of "feel" conservative compared to a lot of people, I must not be. I am in favor of legal abortions, legal drugs, and extension of full social rights to gays for the same reason I support gun ownership, lower taxes, and the abolition of affirmative action/preference programs of any type: to me, true conservsatism means a tiny government that keeps the roads paved and the Army trained and otherwise butts the hell outta my business. Many so-called conservatives have been using government as the bully pulpit to advance moral and social agendas the same way liberals so often do.

Hey get outta my head!! I feel the same way about all of thoes things. I do disagree about Rush Linbaugh , though. I think that he and all of the conervative and liberal extremsts should be rounded up and sent through a bad neighborhood at night. I would realy change the perspective of both sides.

[Gregster]

Originally posted by Azred: In short, conservatives think they are correct from an logical/academic point of view while liberals feel that they are correct from their heart.

Well-stated, Azred...and as it happens, my main problem with liberals.

Liberals view the world in terms of how it ought to be...conservatives deal with problems and agendas in terms the way it IS.

I agree that people should not live in poverty...that's how it oughta be. However, there are a lot of people who (literally) can't even be paid to give a damn about themselves...that's how it is. I agree that homeless people should have homes to live in...that's how it oughta be. But roughly 1/3 of the homeless population has serious substance abuse problems and another 1/3 suffers from major mental disorders; thus, even if you built a home for every last homeless person, 2/3 of them would either tear out the plumbing and sell the metal for crack money or run up to the top floor and jump out the window...that's how it is. Nobody should be treated unfairly because of their gender, race, religion, or sexual preference...that's how it ought to be. But the world is full of a-holes...that's how it is.

Of course, if everyone took the time to raise their own kids, handle their own affairs, and keep their own houses in order, most of the social problems we have would not exist-- which is one rare example of the conservative view of how it oughta be. Nobody forces a person to skip school, get high, break the law, get arrested, or get pregnant...all of these things entail a choice, something everyone needs to have in a free society. Conversely, I fail to see how expensive government programs will make a difference since they can't force people *NOT* to screw their lives up.

Thus, I am not at all moved to action when someone tells me that I need to pony up my money simply because I need to show I care and something must be done. A limited amount of social beneficience is necessary in a truly decent and compassionate society. I have no problem with some of my taxes being doled out to a hard-working blue-collar man in a town where the factory closed so he can keep a roof over his head and feed his kids until he can (here's the kicker, folks) find another job. However, government social programs like government programs of any type do nothing but grow-- they're run by politicians and politicians like influence and bigger programs with more influence need more money to survive. It does not help that government is not a business and thus does not expect results; thus, being an utter failure is not enough to get a government program shut down. If anything, it's advocates complain that it was underfunded and needs more money.

I stated earlier that I support "liberal" causes like drug legalization, abortion, and gay rights. This is not because I think drugs are great and everyone should take them and because I hate fetuses and think gays are swell people 100% of the time. I support these things out of the simple, pragmatic belief that in a free country, rational consenting adults have every right to do as they please as long as it does not affect anyone else. Social problems are the result of human flaws. Government cannot logically solve them without legislating human behavior...and a country where this happens is not free and is no place I wanna live.

[ 12-21-2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Gregster ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gregster: Would I be correct in assuming that your assertion that liberalism carries a stigma is somehow related to you being one?.

Greg that's an uncalled for remark. It's also rather mean spirited.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mark on this issue. As an outsider it does seem stigmatic to a ludicrous extent.

Your comment actually reinforces it.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gregster: Liberals view the world in terms of how it ought to be...conservatives deal with problems and agendas in terms the way it IS.

More labels and generalisations. Let's reinforce ignorant categorisation of people based on some idealogical leanings.

A communist, democratic believer, Muslim, Anarchist and Feral could all view the world in terms of how it should be.

A REALIST is one who views the world how it is, and you can be a realistic communist, realistic Muslim, realistic Anarchist and of course realistic LIBERAL. Who gives a toss.

A CONSERVATIVE is one who won't change the status quo, and so is directly related to what the political situation is.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union in it's last years was called CONSERVATIVE.

A Monarchist committed to a reigning monarch would be conservative.

The opposite of conservatism is radicalism. Not Liberalism.

[ 12-21-2002, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]