I watch a fair amount of U.S. politics (maybe this should be in G.D.?), and two words seem to be synonymous with all that is evil in the world:
Socialist and Liberal.
These words get bandied about a lot, and I’m curious about the response they trigger in people.
If you’d be kind enough to include where you are from in your reply, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks!
Well, when I hear the word Socialism, I think (in no particular order):
which eventually leads into communism, totalitarianism, general tyranny, and the all-powerful Evil Empire[sub]tm[/sub].
When I think Liberal, I think:.
I am from South Texas, in America.
I don’t really see the concepts of socialism and liberalism as evil, just unrealistic and unfair. I do find the emotional manipulation of the public by liberals dishonest and wrong, though, and some things done in the name of socialism are downright evil.
I think one of the problems is that it seems easier to justify evil acts if it is supposedly to help and protect people, and therefore a socialist government is going to try and get away with more stuff I disapprove of, while a more conservative libertarian view seems more honest.
When I hear the terms “socialist” and “liberal” I think, “Oh, here’s a person who would rather lump things into neat categories than actually look at individual people and situations the way an intelligent, educated person should try to.” Same thing I think when I hear the terms “nigger” and “conservative.”
The sad part is, I’m very, very rarely wrong.
I’m in Charlotte, North Carolina, but I’m a native of Columbia, South Carolina. I don’t think I’m representative of my environment.
Ditto all of the above, plus socialism has connotations of massive waste of public funds, burdensome tax rates and so on.
Unlike Knead, I have been known to be wrong on a number of occasions. So read my words with that in mind.
I have always seen the word “socialist” as an economic stand rather than a political one. Yes, while socialists are for the socialization of major industries and utilities which can be construed as political points, I think viewing it objectively, their philosophy comes from an economic direction.
My take on the word “liberal” tends to be in a social context. Someone with liberal points of view is an individual who is less interested in economic movements and more interested in helping out people who need specific assistance. That’s why Ted Turner, who is definitely not a socialist is just as definitely a liberal.
TV
I think darian00’s and Badzt Maru’s posts illustrate well how these terms push the buttons of certain people in the USA. Frankly, however, their usage has become hopelessly corrupted, to the point where they are epithets rather than useful descriptions of one’s political beliefs. Moreover, if one can be bothered to look up the dictionary definitions, “Liberal” and “Socialist” could hardly be less similar in meaning.
At this time, one would be hard-pressed to find many true socialists in this country, as “socialism” is defined in the dictionary. Members of the Democratic party in the USA are often described as socialists by the opposition, but I am unaware of a democratic party platform that strictly advocates “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”.
“Liberal”, while considerably different in meaning, appears to have become equal in the minds of most Americans with “Socialist” sometime in the past few decades.
Me, I’m a liberal, more or less hitting four of the six definitions listed in the M-W online dictionary on the nose. I’ll leave others to determine which four :D.
I’m most definitely not a socialist.
I’m from Pennsylvania, USA.
Barb felt and quite deservedly, TV time. I should have said that I’m very, very rarely proven wrong when I interpret those words in the way I describe. My point was that my experience has been that those words are most often used in a prejudiced and closed-minded way. That’s all. Sorry for the slip of the brain. 
{b]Knead** is right. I’ll add that someone using the word “Socialist” as a synonym for “Liberal” is as ignorant as someone using “Liberal” as a synonym for “Not Conservative”. The OP asked for reactions to hearing the words, and my first reaction is that the person using them is more interested in spreading ignorance and hatred than in genuine understanding of issued and advancement of our society.
That is certainly not descriptive of all self-described conservatives, of course - there are many who simply have a different framework for viewing the world, and are very willing to engage those with whom they disagree in attempts to gain mutual understanding and policy compromise. But use of the above code words is a pretty reliable indicator of lack of same, and a probability that the person will consider these terms synonymous: Liberal, Socialist, pinko, Communist, bleeding-heart, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend, stealer of “my” money, pro-baby-killer, Clinton-lover, un-Christian (or even Godless), anti-“family-values”, gay-lover, gu -stealer, drug-lover, pervert. Did I miss any of the standard canon?
But there are many, many contexts, and news and opinion sources, available where the premise of the OP’s first sentence is not accurate. There’s a big world out there.
Since you asked, I’m a native Midwesterner living in New England.
Socialist and liberal? Wow, that’s me.
I live in the mid-Atlantic, but I was born in the Philly suburbs and grew up in South Florida, that amazing political mixing bowl of liberal FDR-Democrat retirees and right-wing Cuban conservative Republicans.
I’m in the People’s Republic of Maryland now and like it.
I’ve often wondered about the “the slippery slope” the gun lobby are so concerned about, and there you have it. A bit sad really.
Coming from a country where the governing “Liberals” are a right of centre political party, I reckon you’re batting 0/6.
I’d expect a right wing government would be just as likely as a left wing one to feature those characteristics.
I associate socialism with a higher level of public services (such as health care, subsidized education, etc.) funded by higher levels of taxes. But then I live in the UK, which is a “socialist” country to some extent, but not to the same degree as other European countries.
OTOH, most self-described Socialists I have met have been pretty politically radical – largely middle class students who think the government should offer more free stuff, paid for by taxing the “fat cats”. These people rarely seem to have any grasp of political or economic realities, nor even a clue who these so-called “fat cats” are (other than “people who have more money than they do”).
“Liberal” I associate with simply politically left-wing. Although whenever I hear someone use “liberal” in a derogatory manner, I automatically assume the person doing so is a reactionary jerk who likes Rush Limbaugh. But that’s just me.
When I think of Liberal I think of me.
I do believe in some moderate forms of gun control.
Basically we need to enforce laws we do have and maybe fine tune some others. I do not believe in a total ban on guns.
I believe stongly in freedom of speech and freedom of religion and also freedom from religion.
I believe in great education for all, not just the rich, and I believe in a legal system that works for all, not just the rich. I believe in a health system that is available to all, not just the rich.
I do believe that the word Liberal has been demonized by the Republicans specifically during the 80’s. I also think it is sad that if someone is labled a Liberal or a Conservative that some people won’t listen to a word that is said and will believe that eveything that comes from that person is evil.
I was born and raised in Oklahoma but I now live in NYC.
Here in NYC the Mayor (a consevative Republican) is going through a nasty divorce. I tell people here that I thought it was wrong for the news media to bring out Bill Clinton’s private life and I think it is wrong for the news media to bring out Rudy G’s private life.
I try to judge a politician by the laws and programs that put forth and support not by what letter follows their name.
Okay, I have little knowledge or interest in politics, and I would never endorse a politician who claimed to be liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, socialist, communist, patrio-psychotic-anarcho-materialist, or anything else. But I do have a response to those words, socialist and liberal.
“Socialist” makes me think of the US education system, which is pretty much socialist as I understand it. Everyone gets to go to school, and everyone pays for it. It’s a pretty good education system, though it is certainly flawed.
“Socialist” also makes me think of the Canadian system of health care. My 80-year old parents, struggling to pay for their own health care, are so opposed to socialized medicine that we can’t even discuss it rationally. My Canadian acquaintances look confused when I talk about this. “Hmmm,” they say, “I never thought about having to pay for health care before–it’s free for everyone where I come from.” Yet my parents refuse to consider that a socialized health care system might be good. Weird.
Higher taxes under a “socialist” system? So what? What are taxes for–to provide public services, or to further fatten the politicians? Taxes don’t bother me much, at my income level. And it’s hard to feel sorry for those in higher tax brackets.
“Liberal” has changed in meaning over the years. It used to mean that someone wasn’t afraid to challenge and change the status quo, which was good. Now it’s different, I think. But when I hear the word “liberal,” I too tend to think of someone that Rush Limbaugh probably maligns. And that’s enough to make me like liberals, misguided though they may be.
I grew up where my aging parents still live, in rural east Texas.
I find myself giggling whenever people mention a specific political system or a specific economic system. These words are bandied about far too much. Pure forms of govt don’t exist. It really is not possible. Communism and socialism go against human nature too much to be able to work on a society once it has reached a certain size. People are greedy and self serving by nature. If we work twice as hard, we should have more. An understandable opinion. Pure capitalism cannot exist either…It has to have restraints. A line must be drawn somewhere for the good of the society.
The best governments are the ones which combine the best parts of each different form. Certain socialist ideas are a good thing for society (i.e. free healthcare, some social programs). They keep the members strong and promote togetherness. Somehow the different idealogies all mesh together to create a government and a society which cannot really be classified. Why must we label it? All that matters is that it works. If it does not, it changes slowly through the course of time, or sometimes radically all at once, until it does. Sometimes it backslides into something less desirable, and sometimes it improves. Politics and economics are far from static. Utopia does not exist. All we can do is use the best we have to make the best we can. Don’t be afraid to mix idealogies. It is NOT a bad thing for a right winger to think that maybe WIC is not such a bad idea, and it is no crime for a left winger to think that maybe, just maybe, there are a few too many people on the welfare roles.
BTW…most would classify me as a rampant bleeding heart liberal. I live in Oklahoma.
And I guess that would be me. :rolleyes:
Since I’m probably gonna get branded as a “Mind-Numbed Robot[sup]TM[/sup]” anyway, I might as well make it sooner rather than later.
“Socialist”: second only to communist. (not in a good way)
“Liberal”: second only to socialist. (not in a good way)
Over-simplication, sure. But you asked for responses to the terms.
If you want details, well then, at the risk of sending this to GD:
I guess liberal politics embody socialist economics. Namely, more government control over private industry. This includes what other people here seem to think are “rights”. Namely, the education industry, the health care industry, and the housing industry.
I have a theory: The reason these terms, socialist and liberal, arouse such ardent reactions from those that oppose them, is because of the strong, vibrant ethic in this country that believes in individual freedom and responsibility. Relying on government to provide ANYTHING is to give up a certain amount of freedom.
example: The raging debate over the patients bill of rights is, at this moment, hinging around the right of patients to sue their HMO, which is currently rather limited. Medicare is basically a government-run HMO, which (I believe) does not let patients sue if a service is denied. Nationalized health care would be a enormous bureaucratic entity that no one would be able to opt out of. Just like social security.
El_Kabong said:
Did you happen to see the whole “Hillary-care” plan? Called for the ENTIRE health care industry to become a government entity. And if you think waiting an hour at the DMV is a pain in the ass, just imagine the wait at the hospital…
If you really don’t think that the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party has a socialist-style agenda, I suggest you look at their platform plank by plank and think just what each one of them means to individual freedom.
And I must point out a slight logical inconsistency here:
Since a right-wing government would spring from a majority of the citizenship wanting a greater degree of individual freedom and responsibility, the result of which would be the reduction of government influence across the board, there wouldn’t be enough room for any corruption to have much influence or for tyranny to grab a foothold.
For me, a government that works best, works least. Demand More Gridlock Now!
Yeah, the only time you were really wrong is that time you thought you were wrong about something.
sigh
Another resident of People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland checking in. 
(though I ain’t been home for a long while).
Personally, I think of “perfectly good and viable political beliefs maligned into the ground by people with no understanding of them,” but maybe that’s just me.
Well, guess we can add Tygr to the list of those whose buttons have been pushed.
The conservative/liberal debate is really for another thread, but I did enjoy this:
Right! Tear up the Interstate Highway System Now!
Since then, most of American health care has gone to the HMO system. So, instead of health care decisions being made by some distant government bureaucrat, they’re now being made by some distant corporate bureaucrat, who has an incentive to cut costs at that.
Yep, that’s “individual freedom” at work for you. We can thank those people for saving civilization for us.