What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)
 

I remember what it was like. I was young and full of ideas--I knew the right answer for everything. There were policies that I believed would be best for the country, and for the human race. Many people didn't agree with these ideas, but that was because, you see, they were stupid. You know, studid, racist, Bible-thumpers.

And if they didn't want to go along with the progress of humanity, they would have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. And once all the obsolete oldtimers passed away, the rest of us could really get on with it. It was importnat to stand for things that needed to change. Old-fashioned ideas that weren't needed anymore.

I believed, at that time (although I never would have admitted to it in these terms, but the concept is unavoidable), that a legitimate use of the government would be to impose ideas on some people "for their own good" simply because the rest of us were so convinced that we had all the answers.

I don't believe that anymore.

I still believe it in some circumstances. And I think you do too.

Lookout gave the example of government tax breaks to promote home ownership. I think most people support that, and I think it's a correct use of the government.

But you can use even simpler and less controversial examples. The government wants citizens to not kill each other. So it will throw you in jail if you do.

Of course, you are thinking of people being forced to use compact fluorescent light bulbs, or something like that. You'll be able to come up with examples where the government maybe goes too far. It won't be hard.

Without a doubt, there is a whole, huge chunk of good things that have improved society through government intervention and regulation. We wouldn't even recognize our modern lifestyle without such concepts as, the meat you eat isn't rotten, that aspirin doesn't have poison in it, the shampoo isn't going to blind you, you have a 40-hour week with weekends off, etc. --all "progressive ideas" implemented for the good of the common man, and against the resistance of the forces of industry.

There is absolutely a point where our society updates its predominant concepts. We would be stuck in the stone ages otherwise!

I also think that these changes should have the blessing of the will of the people.

How do you feel about mandatory seat belt and helmet laws?

I'm personally against the laws, but wear the seat belt and helmet anyway (though there's no helmet law for motorcycles in Montana).

Maybe, when you can endanger others with your own stupidity, you shouldn't be allowed to? I think this falls under the expectation of relative safety that will exist when we step outside our front door.

Of course, you've easliy been able to position me into saying that smarter people should impose good ideas on stupider people.

Sometimes, yes. This is mostly gray areas, with very little that is well-defined.

I wouldnt define either liberalism or conservatism by their most extreme elements but rather by the broader consensus within their respective constituencies.

As to having the blessings of the will of the people (the majority), that should be balanced with protecting the rights of the minority.

Oh, excellent point. Very important to have that idea in there--that is fundamental to some of the expectations we have of our society.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but IDEAS don't get imposed on people, LAWS do. For example, a born-again Christian (who will soon disappear with the others in the rapture, thank god) has the idea that there should be a nativity scene in front of the courthouse, but the law prevents such displays. The born-again's idea remains unchanged, however.

I was a liberal until I turned into a cynic, now I just don't give a damn.

I know the feeling.

Liberal and Conservative are just tags people throw on themselves and others so that it is easier to categorize and dismiss the thoughts and ideas of others.

I believe the US government should act with fiscal responsibility. To do that they must not spend more than they take in and they must become debt free.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

I believe the government should operate with the least possible interference with the daily lives of the citizens.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

I believe personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences should be the bedrock for a sound society.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

Each of those statements can and should prompt several different responses. Those responses will be informed by what the individual believes is important and their interpretation of what the gray area in those statements should mean. Tags like liberal and conservative are just convenient ways to divide us so we don't take the time to realize we have more in common with our hardcore opposite than we do with those we've sent to Washington.

Now who has a vested interest in doing that?

Excellent post, LO.

Let me see if I can help you decide whether I'm liberal or conservative by adding a couple thoughts.
I think this needs to be accomplished by significantly cutting spending through a carefully calculated but painful process of eliminating government fraud, waste, and abuse. That will include elimination in every single government agency including the military. That will cost jobs. That will include elimination of programs that are no longer relevent, redundant, or simply a result of government sprawl.

I think this needs to be accomplished by increasing revenue to the treasury. I do not believe this can be accomplished by raising the marginal tax rate on any particular category because any category that has enough money to target also has enough money to manipulate the design, implementation, and enforcement of the tax system. A simple one page form with an easy to understand calculation should suffice for every individual, business, and church in America.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

I believe the government should only be involved in areas where they must.

I am free to be a complete moron so long as it does not endanger another. That means I have the freedom to not wear a seat belt because I have no expectation you will pay my medical bills.

I am free to wear a big ass .45 on my hip as I walk down the street (or carry it concealed) because that does not affect you. I am not free to withdraw that firearm from my holster in anything but a clear cut case of self defense without facing severe legal sanction because that does potentially endanger you.

I am free to put my penis in any consenting adult of legal age or any contraption rigged for my enjoyment regardless of what my neighbors might think because it doesn't affect them. I am not free to wave my willy at the neighbors, put it in their cat, or fornicate on a busstop bench because that affects others.

I am free to marry any consenting adult in a church wedding if the church is willing to perform and recognize the marriage. If I want that partnership to be recognized by the state I must fill out appropriate paperwork to complete my civil partnership, no church wedding required. I don't want the church involved in my government or my government involved in my church.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

I am free to pursue a life as a rock musician even though I'm really bad at it. I am not free to expect a subsidy because of my stupid decision.

I am free to pop out 0,2, or 22 children. I am not free to expect a subsidy for that.

I am free to be a poor employee, disrespect my boss, and take long lunch breaks. I am not free to expect I'll keep my job or to ask the government to help pay my bills when I lose it.

I am free to live anywhere I want even if I know there is no hope of employment. I am free to complain about my lack of opportunity. I am not free to expect you to do something about it.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

I think we need a new category to describe you Lookout. Something like Commie loving libertarian new new dealer? It's hard to say, not having all the facts, just yet.

As for point one, what is your position of Government subsidies and bailouts to "corporations too big to fail" vs the same for individuals "too small to matter"?

I would like to see the gifts (or lack thereof) applied equally.

And definitely no banging at the bus stop.

Im not sure he's a new dealer though.

but maybe a new new deal?

...oh. You mean the new-fangled now newish type of new.

Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

Not for everyone. I love my wife and that crazy bible thing I read says I'm supposed to become one with her in marriage. the mormons, muslims, and jews probably have something along those lines too.

However, if you don't want to be married, no problem.

Strong supporter of mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. My perspective being from the fire/EMS public safety side of things. There is a whole snowball chain of consequences most people don't grasp when you choose not to wear your belt/helmet and are in a serious accident.

It puts my life and limb at much greater risk because you will have greater injuries. My response method will be code 3 lights and sirens instead of just code 2 urgent, my time on scene will be much longer since I will have to use additional equipment and procedures to stabilize, and we will not be able to stick around to help others injured since you are now a life/limb priority and have to be moved immediately. This then requires additional resources to be brought on scene from our own department or neighboring departments, placing further strain on their ability to respond to incidents in their own areas since they're having to come out here as a mutual aid. Most line of duty deaths and injuries for my profession occur while responding to or from a call code 3.


You wearing your seatbelt/helmet greatly reduces the chances of your injuries being as serious, therefore scaling back the amount of response required for your care. Reduces my chances of getting hurt/killed on the job, and costs your local departments, and thus the taxpayers, less money. Your own medical bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
:2cents:

To bad we just can't tell them, hey you didn't wear your belt, so I'm not rushing off to get your dying ass to the hospital.

Interesting perspective. How far should we take that though?

A law banning fast food and junkfood would certainly have a knock on affect as well.

How about a ban on alcohol?

How about unprotocted sex?

Use of firearms by anyone not currently serving in a warzone?

Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive in snow?

Driving a car rather than a covered wagon?

Getting out of bed for longer than your government mandated exercise period?

Is that in the Mrs. Obama plan for America? :p: wouldn't surprise me.

Agreed. It is 1984 newspeak and it is doubleplusgood. I see that as being a trademark of the republican party. The obvious examples are things with catchy names that misdirect, e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, to name two. While the Dems are no better, this isn't one of their tactics, I fault the dems for being too "Marquis of Queensbury" in a street fight. The Republicans I admire for their guerrilla tactics, the ends justify the means so they don't feel the need to fight honorably, since the outcome is believed to be in the best interest of the country, even those to whom the best trickles down. The Dems would rather lose everything than their sense of playing by the rules. (not saying they actually always do play by the rules, but for the most part, they seem wedded to the rule book and calling FOUL every chance they get.)

True, all businesses and entrepeneurs should be accountable for their business decisions and while the personal protection afforded by a corporation has its foundation in a good place that has been abused too often (e.g. Enron) In addition to the market being reset, most importantly what would be taught to the entire nation and world at large would be accountability and moral and ethical values, answering to a higher calling than one's financial self interest. Just as crummy parents will model crummy parenting skills to their kids, our countries leaders (as in LEADERS) are whooly responsible for setting the tone of moral and ethical behavior. Just as lack of fear of loss no longer being in the equation is bad for the economy, so is a lack of personal integrity. If the wealth is going to trickle down, I'm sure the moral bankruptcy will follow along.

This somewhat follows with the previous point, re: people who feel they live in a world of integrity are more likely to behave as their role models do and will not likely run to the ER for the sniffles. There is another component to this aspect which involves improving primary care and follow up care. My BIL was working on a study that showed dramatic cost savings and reduction in unnecessary hospital visits resulting from minor improvements to primary care. (I posted a link to the video last year)

Another aspect of this relates to what Andrew Carnegie believed about the greater value to all of society by building schools, hospitals, and museums. His feeling was that if you paid a man a few dollars more he would just spend it on meat and beer, but if you withheld those dollars from everyone and used the accumulated money to build a school or museum, the entire community would be uplifted rather than each bloke having a bit more meat that week. Sadly, it seems that someone along the line decided, "Fuck the schools and museums, I can get even richer if I just pocket the money." Sure, you can do that, but at what greater long term cost? Not intangible costs, but indirect costs. I feel that the erosion of integrity by the LEADERS BY EXAMPLE may serve that one person but at a greater cost to society.

Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time. At a certain point someone decided it was OK to lie, then from that decision new options are available that weren't before. Choices are made and still more options are opened. What it will take is people adopting a code of ethics and conduct. For example, To me it is obvious that allowing lobbying is very dangerous to integrity and the first politician who allowed it to be sugar coated was the pioneer blazing the trail of what is now a six lane highway.

When I lived at the monastery, the roshi was fond of saying that one of the things that set Buddhism apart from other religions was that it wasn't Atheistic, it wasn't Agnostic, it was Non-theistic. It does not see the existence of God as relevant to living a moral and ethical life. 2500 years ago Buddha put forth the following:

I first cottoned on to that while working on a video at a hospital ER. Every time there was a car crash and they heard "unrestrained" the intensity amped up tremendously. It was a much bigger deal at the hospital too.

Bullitt, my post was *edit, cuz i'm stupid*[NOT not, i really meant NOT meant as screw you, but more of a where does it stop? Personally I feel those are all controls the federal government shouldn't be involved with. If the states want to do so and they can convince their voters to go for it, then more power to them. I seriously have a problem with the federal government expanding to control more and more of our lives.

F3, I had no idea you were such an optimist. I see a nation on the decline, not one still developing. I personally think we've gone past the tipping point of "the greater good" and we'll just keep sliding through "i gotta get mine".

Lookout, I'm no optimist. I was speaking merely theoretically.

Well how long has he been dealing?

:lol2:

...btw this has been an interesting discussion for one who is still unsure about all these labels, thanks :)

With that platform Lookout could be a good president. He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work, but that would be regarded as one of his greatest achievements.

I think a progressive tax is better. I think the socially provided safety net should include education, medical care and financial support for those unable to work through age or illness, plus some kind of paid keep-you-busy work for the capable unemployed. Putting medical care in the safety net makes it appropriate to require people to take certain precautions, like seat belts.

The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?

I would support the use of a few well placed tactical nukes.

Oh, its been on the sly for quite a while now..

*snort*

Don't play with your food?

1) Kill all the lawyers. Severely beat all remaining lobbiests.

2) I support all of those ideas on a state level. If you are using the safety net you should have to see the people paying for it.

3) I said no wangs in the neighbor's cat. Yours is yours.

I shalt not covet my neighbour's pussy.

No worries I didn't take it as such. I agree it does have to stop somewhere because I too feel that government control over our lives should be as limited as possible, while still looking out for the greater good. Seatbelt/helmet is just an area I think government mandated usage is ok. In many other areas I would rather people left to make their own decisions.

Oooh! Pick me as your running mate.

I'd also like to ad a ban on "American" corporations that have their offices in the Bahamas and their manufacturing in any place other than the 50 states. No weasely loopholes.

Neutron bombs and I'd be ok with it. Why leave a mess and destroy innocent buildings?

But this is part of the problem. Everyone wants some special exemption or exception and we end up back where we started.

Which is why we have "Scofflaws"

I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.

In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket;). Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.

It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.

Actually, it's more like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise baby Jesus would cry.

It's an understandable mistake Rich.

so much this.

its too late (well, early, at this point) for me to formulate a full response. but, this is a broad-strokes explanation of my own vision of libertarian liberalism/ libertarian-socialism. I believe that the role of government in telling people what they CAN'T do should be limited, but the role of government in telling people what economic/potentially-harmful-to-others rules they can enforce, especially when it comes to helping the poor and the sick and the otherwise needful, should be strong and positive.

Liberal means something different here than it does in my country, I think.

In my country, it means one who encourages more individual liberty, more education, and the idea that economy is best served by encouraging growth from the bottom up, not the top down, by which I mean free enterprise at the individual level, rather than that of huge corporations that do not need any help.

In this, I am definitely a liberal.

Oh it pretty much means the same thing here (or did when I was growing up) it's just that those values are heinous and unethical (as taught by our corporately funded popular culture propaganda machine.)

Yes, I am very puzzled by this "tea party". It is fascinating to watch people form crowds to yell for what's directly against their own best interests.

The tea party wants to cut X, Y, & Z. But when you ask them how much of Y should we cut, these same tea partiers say that don't want to cut Y. They just want to cut spending. But have no idea what really must be cut.

Simplest and most obvious cut: eliminate the paper dollar bill. That would save $1billion annually. But their political extremist handlers did not discuss that. So they have no idea that paper $1 bills should be or could be eliminated. They only know what their handlers (ie Limbaugh) have told them to believe. Including "we want Obama to fail".

When the tea party had their first 'convention', who were the most popular in polls? Gingrich? Bush? Palin? Cheney? Paul? Nope. Beck and Limbaugh scored the highest popularity numbers. After all, those who tell them how to think will always be most popular.

I can tell you what a liberal is not.

And that is someone who wants to amend the Constitution to take away rights or deny rights to citizens, as is currently high on the list of priorities for many conservatives and something that has only been done once in 200+ years (prohibition).

Yes you shall! I mean if she is hot....:D

I think we need to define the terms "neighbor" and "pussy" for starters [/bill clinton]

More on what a liberal is not.

A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.

Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.

found this online...

cannot link though -

Frank Gafney is one of those conservatives who claim the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood

And, as in the case above, never provides documentation --> fear mongering.

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...

It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.

French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.

Directed at Gaffney, who also suggests that the Obama administration manipulated the redesign of the Missile Defense Agency to look like his campaign logo and then that the new logo incorporates the Islamic crescent as well.

The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.

I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.

I dont think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.

So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.

I am much concernced about the intolerance of Republican presidential candiates, some conservative talking heads and pseudo-media types who spread misinformation and fear based on inuendo and dubious if not downright ludicrious accusations that unfortunately some people believe.