Can you please stop calling yourselves Liberals

You are not a bloody liberal!!

Not much of a rant but…

I am so fucking sick of hearing trendy lefties describe themselves as liberals. You are not a liberal. instead of espousing your emotive views left right and centre under the liberal banner try reading some fucking history. You are no more liberal than todays conservatives are.

They are not liberals because they want to control my private life. Than again, they tend not to describe themselves as such either.

You are not a liberal because you wish to control my economic life. You often describe yourself as a liberal.

The closest people I have seen to classical liberals are todays libertarians. Liberalism meant freedom. Soemthing both the left and the right in todays world seem to routinely ignore.

So please, let actual liberals have the word back.
The left can be liberal on social issues - yes. The right can be liberal on economic issues - yes. Neither can really be described as truly liberal though. Both wish to interfere in my life. note that last bit - my life. Not yours.

(inspired by a moron at work who described themselves as liberal - green party member)

Have you ever seen one of those little Tasmanian Devils?

Why yes I have…nothing like the cartoon though but real cute for a scavenger

On ‘The Jeff Corwin Experience’ (a US nature show), they had a of those things screaming. Simply terrifying. But they are cute.

I like your OP. I am a self-described conservative, but the moniker ‘conservative’ doesn’t accuratly describe most modern-day American conservatives. And ‘neo-con’ sounds kind of funny. Heck, I am probably a ‘neo-con’ myself. I need to get a checklist.

Sorry, chum. Language evolves, and “liberal” is now commonly used to refer to people who work to balance invidual freedom with individual welfare, people who don’t place Private Property as one of the great sacraments (as do libertarians). You can call yourself neoliberal, meaning paleoliberal, but we won plain old liberal fair and square.


the term neoliberal is already taken by Noem Chomsky for his economic philosophies, and is the policy used by the world bank in its lending practices.

Perhaps I will have to stick with classical liberal, but i am still miffed about this. Todays liberals I think would be better described as socialists (albeit in some cases mild ones)

Yeah, Daniel is right. Political labels change with time. 150 years ago, you were a conservative if you thought slavery was a good idea. Now that makes you a looney toon.

If you want to be a libertarian, just be a libertarian. Why does the specific term bother you so much? Clarity of purpose and well thought out political beliefs are far more important than a fantastically superficial label attached to them.

Good God. It’s been a long time since I read Chomsky and I forgot how much of an imbecile he is. I got the urge to bang my head into my desk due to the influx of insanely stupid rhetoric by the third paragraph.

He is articulate though.

Oddly enough, in Canada, the Liberals are moderate conservatives and the Conservatives are classical liberals.

(I’m a social-democratic progressive and a New Democrat.)

Actually, I would offer that “liberal” is now commonly used to refer to anybody and everybody that votes Democrat, regardless of what the issue is. Which is a shame, because that would mean that the word “liberal” has become inadequate to properly define that which it is supposed to define.

SPOOFE, I’m not sure that’s accurate – otherwise, terms like “Conservative Democrat” and “Liberal Democrat” would be oxymorons and tautologies, respectively.


Chomsky is articulate and is a tireless champion of freedom and real democracy, i.e., anarchism. I am a libertarian socialist a la Chomsky.

“All understand very well that free enterprise means that the public pays the costs and bears the risks if things go wrong; for example bank and corporate bailouts that have cost the public hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years. Profit is to be privatized, but cost and risk socialized, in really existing market systems. The centuries-old tale proceeds today without notable change, not only in the United States, of course.”

83rd paragraph. Capitalism is socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor.

Here in Australia the Liberal Party is (was) the moderate conservative party, but under Howard it seems to be moving further right.

The Labor (note the spelling) was traditionally union alighned and left of centre, but due to factional control, has moved further towards the centre.

The National Party is the rural-based conservative party, they are in a coalition with the Liberals, but seem to be getting more irrelevant.

The Democrats are a joke, and seem to oppose everything without offering much alternatives.


Yeah, I’d be willing to bet that most Democrats where I live would consider being called liberal to be an insult.

Fair enough.

Only 50 years in Mississippi and South Carolina.

You’re right and you’re wrong.

There is a difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal.
There is a BIG difference between either of these and a radical.
Marx was a radical, thus Socialists tend to be radicals. We believe the market is just another method of dividing society into CLASS. Marx saw the emancipation of the individual as being inseparable from the emancipation of the non-capitalist class or classes.

In truth it is you who need to read something and get of your ignorant high-horse. Plenty of Greens are liberal. Rightwing governments are often liberal. The thing about rightwing liberals is they are all hypocrits (neo-liberal).

Chomsky proves his ignorance of economics by describing an inherently uncapitalistic process (the theft of private wealth for a futile attempt at preserving the stability of a failed market) as the very “capitalism” he so despises. He repeatedly displays his lack of interest in examining economic models. Rather, he simply enjoys attacking the status quo and offering alternatives that are strikingly similar to the unjust economic bullying already extant in much of the world. In other words, for Chomsky, forced redistribution of wealth is a given. As long as it is distributed to the places Chomsky prefers, the world is just. It is the truest test of a power-mad socialist to declare unashamedly that he is more qualified to spend money than the people who earned it.

I challenge you to make that statement make sense.

Some here in America would say the same!

Personally, I consider myself “old-school” Republican (my own title). I stand for the values of the Republican party prior to its being hijacked by the “Christian Right” (which is neither!) I’m economically conservative (government keep your hands off my money), and socially “liberal” (government keep your hands off my life).

I define old-school Republican as minimal government interference in our lives (obviously).

I think the problem we’re having with these definitions is that there is a major shuffling of priorities in the parties right now. Party members tend to agree with a fair amount of issues on both sides of party lines, so that their party faithfulness is more to party name than to issues anymore. It’ll probably be a decade before they really get it all sorted out. I wonder if this happened to the Whigs…?