When did the term “liberal” become viewed as a deragotory statement. There are plenty of self-avowed conservatives out there, but few politicians can call themselves a liberal and hope to be elected.
From what I gather, Europeans tend to be far more liberal (socially, at least) than Americans. Any validity in that belief?
It’s hard to answer this without going into GD territory. Basically people are realizing that ‘liberal’ ideas such as high taxes, socialized medicine, tax & spend government, overly lenient criminal justice, welfare etc. don’t work in the long run. They all just wind up costing more and more money and working less and less efficiently.
Liberal ideas are all simplistic, ‘nice’ things which sound great on election day but which fall completely apart afterward because they aren’t thought thru.
As far as Europe is concerned…
I think that the American Revolution was the decisive and absolute break from the old world notion of ruling and ruled classes. And with the decision to reject a devine ruling class came the decision to accept absolute personal responsibility for one’s own needs. And I think that Europe (and most of the rest of the world) have never done this.
No it’s not, you’re just incapable of doing so.
The term liberal was first used as a derogatory term during the course of Reagan’s “republican revolution.” The demonization of liberals had a particular appeal to those far right religious groups which Reagan brought in in order to stave off the collapse of the party after Nixon and watergate. The subsequent takeover of the GOP by those groups has ensured that the “liberal” lable remains a common pejorative to this day.
Oh, nonsense! “Liberal” was being used as a perjorative LONG before Ronald Reagan’s election. As early as 1972, Archie Bunker could be seen on TV railing against the lousy liberals who were ruining America- and the fictional character Archie Bunker was merely saying what REAL blue-collar New Yorkers had been saying for years.
Based on experience, I’d say that “liberal” became a 4-letter word to working-class New Yorkers in the late 1960s. And the issue that did the most to MAKE “liberal” a dirty word was crime. Violent crime was a relative rarety in most American cities before the 1960s, when it began to climb steadily. “Liberals” were seen (with much justice, I might add) as soft on crime, as people who’d rather make excuses for crimnals than punish them.
That’s the single biggest reason that working-class whites (who’d been voting straight Democratic tickets since time immemorial) began to think the unthinkable: that maybe it was time to vote Republican.
Your experience obviously differs from mine. I first noticed the insult being used nationally at the time of the rise of the religious right. No doubt it has prior history, but I interpreted the question as an inquiry into when the insult came into general use nationwide. IIRC the Moral Majority made great and loud proclamations as to their superiority to “liberals”.
Falwell
By all means check the quote. I need to cook supper and haven’t got the time, but again IIRC it’s at least roughly accurate.
Does that include the Civil Rights movement, the women’s movement, social security, Medicare?
I can remember a time when the word “Conservative” had negative connotations – though not as negative as “Liberal” is now. But the pendulum will continue to swing.
In 1972 Archie Bunker was considered a bigot. His views were laughable. That is one of the reasons the show was such a success. To say that he represented the REAL blue-collar New Yorkers is a sweeping generalization that doesn’t hold up. There were some who saw Archie Bunker as a hero, but not many.
The word “Liberal” may have been considered a dirty word to some Conservatives, but most people didn’t seem to be embarrassed to describe themselves as Liberals until the emergence of the Christian Right and the Reagan administration.
And remember, Americans voted for the more liberal candidate in the last Presidential election.
The sentence “Liberal ideas are all simplistic” is rather simplistic itself.
This is, of course, an historical question the answer to which need not (and shall not) refer to whether the characterization is accurate in some way.
I swear I’m gonna start emailing all the etymology thread to Safire and let him deal with them.
So who are all these “self-avowed conservatives” who have gotten themselves elected? Certainly not middle-of-the-roaders like Bush.
The OP’s question is based on the false premise that conservatives are held in high regard, and that liberals are not.
Peace,
mangeorge
Liberal/Conservative they are both four letter words, depending what is in vogue at the time. And the truth is probably that, as a nation, we are becoming more and more middle-of-the road.
You mean Bush, the “Compassionate Conservative?”
Exactly. The stereotypes of ‘The Liberal Democrat’ and ‘The Conservative Republican’ are just that. Stereotypes. And fairly recent ones. And fairly over-simplified ones.
I love pointing out to, ahem, less educated folk, that Lincoln was a Republican. That the Republican Party was formed in large part on the basis of ending slavery. That because of this, for decades the most openly racist people despised the “party of Lincoln”.
Yes, absolutely. These are all very good ideas. Ones that I’m proud to say I support.
But not to the point of denying that affirmative action isn’t just reverse discrimination, and that its a bad thing to leave in place forever. Or that every woman should be allowed to pass the firefighter or police academy even if it means lowering the physical abilities standard. Or that safety nets like welfare and Medicare should be increased just because ‘the rich can afford more taxes’.
That’s what I mean by being overly simple. Believing that these things are all absolute, unalterable constitutional rights. And that you’re just a racist, misogynist snob if you dare question any of them. And it is my experience that true liberals think this way.
Is that anything like a true scotsman?
No, I think he means Bush the “uniter not a divider.”
Sugar and everything 
I think for people politically opposed to liberalism, ‘liberal’ has always been a dirty word. A better question might be when prominent liberals themselves felt the term was something they needed to distance themselves from.
Personally, the first time I’d noticed it was during the 1988 Bush-Dukakis campaign. But then, as I was 16 at the time, it was the first presidential campaign that I’d watched closely.
Read Ann Coulter or listen to Limbaugh sometime (ok, don’t). Their use of the word liberal does not have any room in it whatsoever for anything resembling good, intelligent, or human.
They use it, in fact, like certain members of my extended family use the n-word when referring to people not of their race.
I have not personally witnessed this treatment given to ‘conservative’, but hey, I’m young and maybe I’m not seeing the valley for the mountain. There are a small number of righty writers than I favor, so I can’t say I’ve done it.
Did I miss something? Both Bush and Gore are more liberal than Ralph Nader?
IMHO 1988 is when it became a slur/campaign tactic used against Dukakis.
Guide me, oh thou great jehovah68! You are absolutely right in correcting me. BTW, I’m switching to Green next time myself.
[hijack]
Yes, absolutely. These are all very good ideas. Ones that I’m proud to say I support.
But not to the point of denying that affirmative action isn’t just reverse discrimination, and that its a bad thing to leave in place forever. Or that every woman should be allowed to pass the firefighter or police academy even if it means lowering the physical abilities standard. Or that safety nets like welfare and Medicare should be increased just because ‘the rich can afford more taxes’.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstood my question to Hail Ant. He said that liberal ideas fall through. I was asking him if that was true of civil rights, the women’s movement, etc. I too support these ideas and I think that they are good examples of liberal ideas that didn’t fall apart.
I agree with you that affirmative action is reverse discrimination. I recently found out that 70% of the most qualified applicants at Harvard are women, but only 50% of the student body is female. I have also been denied teaching assignments because I was the wrong color.
I have never known a feminist that asked that physical standards be lowered for women (and certainly not 'every" woman) doing the same job as a man. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened – just that it is not a feminist position.
Certainly there is terrible misuse of the welfare program. But even more abuse of corporate welfare. But medicare is different. The elderly and disabled should not be without access to health care and medication.
[quoteThat’s what I mean by being overly simple. Believing that these things are all absolute, unalterable constitutional rights.[/quote]
I believe that the civil rights movement and the women’s movement are both an outgrowth of the fundamentals of our Constitution. I have NEVER heard a liberal say that welfare and medicare are Constituional rights.
I am a true Liberal – probably to the left of Lenin…well, almost. I do not think that you are racist or misogynist or a snob just because you don’t believe that affirmative action should continue indefinitely. Of course, maybe that is how you decide who is a “true Liberal” and who is not. [/hijack]
:::I love pointing out to, ahem, less educated folk, that Lincoln was a Republican. That the Republican Party was formed in large part on the basis of ending slavery. That because of this, for decades the most openly racist people despised the “party of Lincoln”.:::
Yea, Lincoln was a Republican, and Hitler was part of a socialist party. I’m not trying to compare Lincoln w/ Adolf, I’m just pointing out that being a part of a political party doesn’t mean a whole lot. Lincoln would obviously be more akin to a Democrat by today’s standards. He was no ardent liberal, by he believed in a strong Federal government, which is, of course, what the Civil War was all about.