Liberal is not a naughty word

[ElvisL1ves]

John, try this instead for a starter. Or FAIR. You may be right that the assertion is not absolutely provable, in whatever sense you mean that word, but neither is it unsupported, nor are those who insist on looking into the question embarrassing themselves. The evidence is there and harder to dismiss than you suggest.

@Celyn

I’ve noticed on message board (I am thinking of another one, not the SDMB exactly) that a LOT of U.S. people seem to equate “liberal” with “spawn of Satan”.

Well, there’s this recent gem from Rune:

@Rune

In the name of Cecil I cast thee out! Begone! Spawn-of-Satan, leave this place and go back to depths of hell! Go torture the damned with your never ending threads of “7 minutes” or “Haliburton” or something.

Oh, wait, he’s European too. Never mind.

[pervert]

@BobLibDem

Of course, liberalism is not a dirty word. Many of the liberal idea have become mainstream- social security, integration, voting rights, women’s rights, etc. We tend to take these societal advances for granted without remembering from whence they came. As Al Sharpton pointed out, if George W. Bush had appointed the Supreme Court in 1954, Clarence Thomas would never have gotten into law school. There is some kernel of truth in the hyperbole. The “conservatives” have traditionally fought against every civil rights movement in history- whether it was the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the ERA in the 1970s, or gay rights today. In the sense that “liberal” means tolerant of other people and open to new ideas, I consider “liberal” to be a badge of honor.

Fair enough. People have forgotten the contributions of liberals throughout history. But you commit the same sin when you compare modern conservatives to earlier models. There indeed was a tim when Liberal meant what the dictionary claims it to mean. I’m not sure that is true anymore.

Are you saying that the speech codes of modern times are a product of Conservative control of the universities? Look at foriegn relations. Which side is proposing new ideas, and which side is suggesting we retreat into our cold war mentality? How many liberals embraced Clinton’s new ideas about reforming welfare?

Both liberals and conservatives are afraid of new ideas which threaten their power base. You may need more definitive terms than are found in your dictionary in order to suggest that liberals are thinkers and conservatives are dogmatics.

[cj_finn]

@John Mace

You’re kidding, right? That’s your “proof” that conservatives control the media? Why not save yourself further embarassement and just retract the claim. It is simply not a provable assertion.

John:
If you felt all along that an assertion regarding conservative control of the media was unprovable, why didn’t you come out and say so up front? I notice also that your post makes a counter claim for which you offer no support other than your opinion. Play fair man!
cj

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s some more material from the Wikipedia, which might help clear up our terminological confusion here, or add to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics:

Left-Right politics is the traditional terminology used to describe the two ideological poles of a political spectrum in a society, especially in a democracy.

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism (“the right”) on one end, and Socialism (“the left”) on the other. (In the United States, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of left-of-center politics; in Europe, this same term can refer to a wide range of center-right to left-of-center politics.) The term left and right was also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues often were very different from the ones in Western nations.

Meaning of the terms

Despite the prevalence and durability of these terms, there is little consensus on what it actually means to be Left or Right. There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:

Support for the economic interests of the less privileged classes (left) or of the more privileged (right). Originally, this meant the rising bourgeoisie (left) vs. the aristocrats (right), but it rather soon came to mean, more commonly, the working class and unemployed (left) versus all wealthy and/or aristocratic classes (right). As discussed in the next section, this issue of class interests was the original meaning of the dichotomy.

Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). One writer who characterizes the distinction along these lines is Norberto Bobbio in Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (ISBN 0226062465). Note, however, that both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations of the two terms. Many self-described leftists (and most anarchists) argue that liberty and equality are inseparable from each other, since people cannot be truly equal unless they are free. Also, there have been many governments opposed to both liberty and equality, but which are nevertheless characterized as “left-wing” or “right-wing”.

Whether law creates and subordinates culture (left), or culture creates and subordinates law (right). This formulation was put forward by US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Whether the government’s involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). For example, the Nolan chart proposes this as one of its axes of distinction between left and right. However, it does not take into account the leftists who wish to limit or abolish the government, such as the anarchists.

Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right). This is the other axis of the Nolan chart.

Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This view has been expressed at times by Australian Labor Party politician Mark Latham.

Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.

Whether living standards can best be improved by direct economic support to the poor (left) or by job creation through greater economic activity (right).

Whether human nature is determined by nurture (left) or nature (right).

Priority for collective rights (left) versus priority for individual rights (right).

Preference for a larger government (left) versus a smaller government (right). Again, this does not take into account such leftists as the libertarian socialists or the anarchists.

Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.

Writers, especially popularizers, have also been known to use the term more loosely and perhaps anachronistically, as did H. G. Wells’s when, writing of the Jews of the Roman Empire, he refers to the Pharisees as “on the right” and Hellenized Jews such as the Sadduccees as “of the left.” [The Outline of History, Garden City Publishing Company, New York, 1931, p.527]

Historical origin of the terms

The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France.

The term originated in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime (“old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, while “The Left” implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original “Left” represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. But even during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor.

In Great Britain at that time, Edmund Burke (now generally described as a conservative) held similar economic views to this first French “Left”, although he strongly criticized their anti-clericalism and their willingness to overturn institutions of long standing.

As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original “Left”: the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants.

Evolution of the terms

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the Left was often characterized by not just a commitment to equality, but also by a belief in the ability and responsibility of the state to ensure that equality. This reflected the belief that laissez-faire capitalism – initially embraced by the Left – often, perhaps inevitably, led to greater inequity. This resulted in the Left being closely identified with socialism, and by implication Marxism (at least in its economic assumptions). The Bolsheviks were certainly “of the left,” and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be “leftist”. Most Western leftists would dispute at least the Stalinist claim to Leftism, due to the gross inequities created by Stalinists and Maoists in practice, though many Leftist parties in Europe allied with Communist parties (see also Eurocommunism) in order to oppose the Right.

In practice, much Cold War era Leftism in the west seems to have been defined as much by its opposition to State Communism as their shared assumptions; since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has led some on the Left to suggest the need for a new, third way approach, perhaps focused on institutionalism or systems such as parecon rather than state socialism.

Modern use of the terms

Today, these terms are widely used, but without any firm consensus about their meaning. They are probably more often embraced by those who would characterize themselves as being “of the left” than “of the right”, although there are exceptions, such as the Romanian neo-fascist group Noua Dreapta (“New Right”).

The contemporary left is usually defined as a category including social democrats, socialists and communists - and some anarchists. In the United States, liberals are also commonly thought to be on the “left”, although American leftists usually prefer the term “progressive”. In general, left implies a commitment to social equality, support for the class interests of the less privileged, and support for a liberal social policy of individual cultural freedom, though not necessarily equally concerned with individual economic freedom. In contrast to the original meaning of “left”, the contemporary Left is usually characterized as having a willingness to engage in government regulation of business, commerce, and industry, and in government intervention on behalf of the less privileged (the poor; racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities; et cetera). In recent years, even some representatives of the anarchist tradition have argued that government regulation may be a lesser evil than what anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky characterizes as the “private tyranny” of the corporations.

The contemporary right is usually defined by its opposition to economic redistribution, open/loose border immigration policies, social liberalism, and/or government mandated cultural diversity. This opposition is usually either in the name of tradition (conservatism or nationalism), of economic freedom and the rights of private property, or of pessimism about the possibility of governments successfully achieving positive effects by legislation.

Doubt about the contemporary relevance of the terms

Some contemporary political positions, such as the position known in the US as “libertarianism”, are very hard to characterize in left-right terms. The libertarians tend to be socially liberal, but reject the leftist advocacy of government regulation of business. Arguably, their politics are the most similar to those of the bourgeois French left of 1789.

Many modern writers question whether the left-right distinction is even relevant in the 21st century. After all, in most countries left-right appears more a matter of historical contingency and local politics than any coherent statement of principle. After World War II, in order to remain politically relevant, the Western European right embraced some traditionally “leftist” aspects of government intervention in society. Similarly, many on the left went along with privatization during the Reagan-Thatcher era; more recently, in post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe, even the parties of the left all seem to advocate a relatively limited state role in the economy. We also see the emergence of movements such as the Green party and feminism which certainly have more in common with the traditional left than the traditional right, but are defined largely by their rejection of the leftist tendency toward reductionist economism.

However, the nature of democratic politics implies that there will always be polarizing issues, and at least on a regional basis the historical Left and Right parties will likely find it expedient to adopt opposing sides. Also, there will always be the temptation to tag your opponents as Right-wing or Left-wing extremists in order to position yourself as moderate. Thus, even if the terms aren’t as globally meaningful as they used to be, they are likely to remain part of our political vocabulary for the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen whether groups advocating consensus-oriented approaches, such as Radical centrist politics, will be able to transcend that historic polarization.

[John_Mace]

@cj finn

John:
If you felt all along that an assertion regarding conservative control of the media was unprovable, why didn’t you come out and say so up front?

I actually didn’t give it much thought when I asked for a cite, so no, I didn’t feel “all along that an assertion was unprovable”. I suppose if one really wanted to prove it, one would have to clearly define “control”, “media”, and “conservative”. If defined narrowly enough, one might try to verify the claim, but I’d suspect that the definitions would have to be so narrow as to make the assertion meaningless.

I notice also that your post makes a counter claim for which you offer no support other than your opinion. Play fair man!
cj

What counter claim? Rjung made a claim that he must support. I’m under no obligation to disprove it.

[cj_finn]

@John Mace

I actually didn’t give it much thought when I asked for a cite, so no, I didn’t feel “all along that an assertion was unprovable”. I suppose if one really wanted to prove it, one would have to clearly define “control”, “media”, and “conservative”. If defined narrowly enough, one might try to verify the claim, but I’d suspect that the definitions would have to be so narrow as to make the assertion meaningless.

I think this is why the “unprovable” line jumped out at me. Aside from the difficulty of proving the negative, because the issue of whether the media has a liberal/conservative bias is ultimately tied to a subjective definition of liberal/conservative, it will be difficult to come to a conclusion that has relevance outside the narrow definition of liberal/conservative we have to invent in the first place.

@John Mace

What counter claim? Rjung made a claim that he must support. I’m under no obligation to disprove it.

Of course you don’t have to disprove Rjung. But your refutation of rjung’s statement implicitly claims that he is wrong without any support of your own. I’m not asking for much here. Just a simple “because there are problems with your supporting material, the case for a conservative bias has not been made”.

cj

[John_Mace]

@cj finn

…your refutation of rjung’s statement implicitly claims that he is wrong without any support of your own…

I didn’t refute his claim, I just asked him to prove it. Did you think the “proof” he offered was adequate?

[rjung]

I’ll retract my claim when ABC does an investigative report on the abuses of third-world sweatshops producing Disney-branded clothing, or Fox News talks about the problems of media conglomeration slanting the news, or NBC does an expose on war profiteering by General Electric in Iraq.

Sheah, right. It’s precisely because western media is so beholden to conservative corporations and conservative politicians that Fahrenheit 9/11 continues to draw big box office – because the populace is so desperate for other perspectives that they’re willing to watch Michael Moore drive an ice-cream truck to get it.

[John_Mace]

I think rjung has just answered the question of why “liberal” is considered a dirty word.

[cj_finn]

@John Mace

I didn’t refute his claim, I just asked him to prove it. Did you think the “proof” he offered was adequate?

To answer your direct question: I do not think that a chart showing conglomeration in the media industry is indicative, by itself, of anything. But then I did not drill down through that web page at all. The meaning of life could be hidden in there for all I know.

As to the other angle here, you rejected his source and claim without any reason at all. Its not a big deal, but it does invite the "I think you meant this . . . " kind of train wreck that involves armies of strawmen. Not, however, that anyone has used a strawman.

cj

[John_Mace]

@cj finn

As to the other angle here, you rejected his source and claim without any reason at all. Its not a big deal, but it does invite the "I think you meant this . . . " kind of train wreck that involves armies of strawmen. Not, however, that anyone has used a strawman.

If rjung found evidence in that cite to support his claim, he should have quoted the relavent part in his post. I found no such evidence. What am I supposed to do-- quote something that doesn’t exist? I’m open to the idea that I missed something in the cite and that rjung or someone else will point me to the part that proves the assertion: “Conservatives control the media.” Until that happens, the assertion remains unproven.

To be fair, rjung only indicated that his cite was the “start” of his proof. I’m open to the idea that there is a middle part and an end that will be revealed some time in the future. But again, until that is presented, the assertion remains unproven.

[msmith537]

Look, the whole premise of the OP is faulty.

“Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” does not equate to “blacks would still be slaving away in the cotton fields and women couldn’t vote”. Conservative does not mean “racist, corporate, religeous fanatic” any more than Liberal means “naive, treehugging doushebag”.

Someone who is conservative would tend to more traditional values - marriage, 2.2 kids, holding a steady job, going to college, maybe going to church or synogogue, patriotism for ones country. These are not necessarily bad things as a society cannot function without some kind of structure.

Liberals are open to new ideas and desire progressive change, right? Well for some people, things are going pretty well or at least well enough and they don’t want some smug know-it-all fucking things up with some half-baked social experiment.

I would guess that the reason a politician does not want to be labeled “Liberal” is because the term is associated with:
-Higher taxes
-Welfare
-Weak on crime
-Weak on defense
-Freaky hippies
-Annoying activists and special interest groups

[WoodCM]

@msmith537

Look, the whole premise of the OP is faulty.

“Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” does not equate to “blacks would still be slaving away in the cotton fields and women couldn’t vote”. Conservative does not mean “racist, corporate, religeous fanatic” any more than Liberal means “naive, treehugging doushebag”.

Someone who is conservative would tend to more traditional values - marriage, 2.2 kids, holding a steady job, going to college, maybe going to church or synogogue, patriotism for ones country. These are not necessarily bad things as a society cannot function without some kind of structure.

Liberals are open to new ideas and desire progressive change, right? Well for some people, things are going pretty well or at least well enough and they don’t want some smug know-it-all fucking things up with some half-baked social experiment.

I would guess that the reason a politician does not want to be labeled “Liberal” is because the term is associated with:
-Higher taxes
-Welfare
-Weak on crime
-Weak on defense
-Freaky hippies
-Annoying activists and special interest groups

I am not replying specifically to this one post, but to the thead in general (which I do not know how to do-sorry).

This all goes to prove what I said in another thread, that the English language has lost all meaning. Well, maybe not all meaning, but certain words, like ‘liberal’, are in fact totally useless. Sorry, but this is the reality of the situation.

I have no idea what remedy there is for this. Perhaps the language is doomed like latin. I don’t know.

yours, CM Wood.

[WoodCM]

@WoodCM

I am not replying specifically to this one post, but to the thead in general (which I do not know how to do-sorry).

This all goes to prove what I said in another thread, that the English language has lost all meaning. Well, maybe not all meaning, but certain words, like ‘liberal’, are in fact totally useless. Sorry, but this is the reality of the situation.

I have no idea what remedy there is for this. Perhaps the language is doomed like latin. I don’t know.

yours, CM Wood.

Oh Joy! I reply to my own post! An attempt on destroying the meaning of the word ‘conservatism’ was made by our dear great leader several years ago. It seems to have succeeded! Thus evil people contribute to the destruction of the language, by force of their faith. A warning for you all!

[Loopydude]

Oh. My. God.

[WoodCM]

@Loopydude

Oh. My. God.

Yes! I saw on the telly recently that Kerry (would be president) say that he was a defender of America in Vietnam. Oh my god! A couple of weeks previous to this I also witnessed on the evil telly that nice Rummy saying that ‘America has never been an expansionist nation’. Oh Jesus, where are you?

Thus in this short space of time I witnessed our langauge thrown into the dust, and trampled all over. Utter destruction of thought itself, by would be opposites. Where are you, clever Yanks?

Answer - nowhere. But don’t worry about it - you are not alone in this . The world is with you! Your infinite greed and worship of power is duplicated everywhere! What you want is exactly the same as what your supposed enemies want! Rejoice, for the rest of humanity is with you!

[dropzone]

@WoodCM

Oh Joy! I reply to my own post!

Well, you’re new. Maybe after a while OTHER people will start replying to your posts. Here, for instance, LoopyDude might have, but there is no way of telling for sure since he failed to reference the post he referred to. But I will assume it is a reply and congratulate you on a successful transition to Honored Guest. Now, pay up and you can become an Honored Member.

[msmith537]

@dropzone

Well, you’re new. Maybe after a while OTHER people will start replying to your posts.

Maybe after they start making sense.