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

[Flint]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

[Flint]

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.

[HungLikeJesus]

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).

[Flint]

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.

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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.

[SamIam]

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.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by SamIam

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

I know the feeling.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Im not sure he's a new dealer though.

Well how long has he been dealing?

Originally Posted by SamIam

For example, a born-again Christian (who will soon disappear with the others in the rapture, thank god) .

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by monster

Well how long has he been dealing?

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

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I wouldnt define either liberalism or conservatism by their most extreme elements...

Which, of course, I'm not, as I've stated I am relating my personal experiences.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

...but rather by the broader consensus within their respective constituencies.

That sounds like a good idea. I would be very interested to see what you think that might look like.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Flint

Which, of course, I'm not, as I've stated I am relating my personal experiences.

That sounds like a good idea. I would be very interested to see what you think that might look like.

I dont think I ever said you were an extremist. In fact, I said we had an interesting discussion at one time just as I have with Lookout.

Defining liberalism by the broader consensus (and comparing it to consensus conservatism as I see it), I mean:

* supporting individual rights of minorities and women rather than denying their rights through constitutional amendments.

* supporting strong environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer regulations as opposed to weak (or cosmetic) regulations and a reliance on voluntary industry compliance.

* supporting short term social safety net programs and not treating those who need temporary assistance as though they are responsible for that need; it could happen to any of us.

I could go on.

What I find humorous is the characterization by many conservatives of Obama as a left wing radical, bordering on socialism, when he is more of a centrist/moderate consensus liberal in many respects than Clinton was.

[Flint]

My misunderstanding, I had thought you were replying directly to me.

Interesting observation, each one of your items in the vanilla description of what it means to be a Liberal is stated in the terms of how Liberals differ from Conservatives some "other" position. I wonder if its even possible, these days, to describe a position without employing this device. I've been remarking for years that people vote "against" rather than "for" candidates. Similar thing here? Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

* supporting individual rights of minorities and women rather than denying their rights through constitutional amendments.

* supporting strong environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer regulations as opposed to weak (or cosmetic) regulations and a reliance on voluntary industry compliance.

* supporting short term social safety net programs and not treating those who need temporary assistance as though they are responsible for that need; it could happen to any of us.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Flint

My misunderstanding, I had thought you were replying directly to me.

Interesting observation, each one of your items in the vanilla description of what it means to be a Liberal is stated in the terms of how Liberals differ from Conservatives some "other" position. I wonder if its even possible, these days, to describe a position without employing this device. I've been remarking for years that people vote "against" rather than "for" candidates. Similar thing here? Thoughts?

The comparisons weren't necessary but I thought brought an added perspective.

Just as I think it is more interesting for discussion purposes to define consensus liberalism and conservatives in how they are reflected in real programs and real policies as opposed to a more academic description.

IMO, consensus liberalism in those terms is not as extreme as consensus conservatism in current American politics

Using the examples from above and current public policy issues:

Consensus liberals dont want to force people to accept gay marriages in their churches, they just want gay couples to have equal marital rights under law. Or to promote abortions or force people to accept abortions, but simply to allow a woman's right to choose. The other side is much more extreme with policy positions to amend the Constitution to deny these rights.

Consensus liberals dont want strong environmental regulations because they are tree huggers or want to protect some endangered species no one every heard of, but because clean air and clean water is beneficial to the quality of life or our species. As opposed to trusting industry to voluntarily meet comparable guidelines.

Consensus liberals want more investment in clean energy, not to save the world from global warming, but because it makes both economic and environmental sense as opposed to "drill baby drill" and $billions in subsidies and tax breaks for five big oil companies making $hundreds of billions in profit.

Consensus liberals recognize the need to compromise on government spending but think a small tax increase on the top bracket should be part of the solution to reducing the debt as opposed to the consensus conservative position that tax increases on the top bracket is non-negotiable.

The Affordable Care Act with its public/private partnership is consensus liberalism as opposed to a more extreme government single payer system, yet the ACA is demonized by conservatives as socialism and government takeover of health care.

You may not agree, but I think current policies and programs of the two major parties defined by their liberal and conservative members reflect the above.

added:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extreme conservatism, 5 being moderate and 10 being extreme liberalism, I would put consensus conservatism in current American politics at a 2 and consensus liberalism at a 7. That is, consensus liberalism is closer to the center, if only marginally and consensus conservatism more extreme.