It seems to me that most on the right who are “conservatives” are proud of the label while those on the left run away from the term"liberal"… or if proud of being “liberal” think that anyone to their right are “moderate”.
Diogenes the Cynic has opined that… "Most of them (Dems in the Senate) are moderate to conservative. There are very few true liberals left anymore.
[still quoting DTC] I would say that the middle has moved a lot further to the right in the last 5 years and that most of the Republicans in the Senate are conservatives rather than moderates. I don’t know that I’d call that many of them “extremists,” though. It’s hard to really be an extremist in the Senate on either end of the spectrum" [end of DTC quote]
Is there another term to use for those to the left of the political center… (I guess then we’d have to define “political center”)?
Give it ten years. “Progressive” will become as dirty a word as those perfectly respectable terms “liberal” or “socialist” were in the past. Cue 2008 election ads trying to associate “progress” to creeping immorality or advancing taxation or the like.
In large part that is, however, because the shrillest, most radical, and least popular elements of the left call themselves Progressives and were the first to take up that banner.
Ironically, Conservative, more or less, means the classic liberalism of the 18th century, although not the rising socialism it was at times identified with on the Continent in the 19th century. Whereas, the Conservatives of the 18th century were generally the existing elites trying to preserve their priveleges.
While I have been designated as a liberal due to my disgust with the current administration, before that I was considered a moderate.
I personally think that the word conservative is a bigger insult than liberal because the first person I think of when I think of conservative is Limbaugh.
If that is so, how is it that the ultra-radical rightists who turn the radio waves in your fair country so much more shrill rest easy with the term “Conservative”? To the rest of the industrialised world, the political compass in the US is skewed way towards authoritarian plutocracy.
The problem with “liberal” taking on an association with either the left or the right — each of which suppresses one liberty or another — practically nullifies the meaning of the word.
Two factors[ul]
[li]“Liberals”, as a group, have been a very motley crew of different ideas and interests. They have not presented a unified campaign defending their image as one in favor of personal choice and coupled with equal opportunity and a responsibility to society as a whole. They have failed to make the case that freedom for each of us means freedom for those we disagree with as well. I trace this back to Dukakis running away from an association with the ACLU. But the fact is this POV ddoesn’t translate into soundbites too well. [/li][li]Meanwhile “Conservatives” have held together an equally disparate group under one banner, allowing the label to stand for so-called “moral values” (which from a Liberal perspective means a loss of personal freedoms, not moral values at all), and paradoxically selling themselves as defenders of keeping the government out of their lives. They have not delivered on the latter at all, but since Conservatives have done such a good job defining “Liberal” (and since Liberals have failed to present an alternative image successfully) many would still prefer the devil they know.[/li][/ul]
Why have Democrats run away from the label? Well, this country is roughly divided into thirds. A group predisposed to the Liberal perspectives (whatever you call it); a group predisposed to Conservative perspectives; and those with mixed views. Democrats will tend to get the first third; Republicans the second; the last is open to being swayed. Given where these people are placed, this translates into the Red and Blue states with the key for Democrats being winning some of the states they lost before. This means taking the Left for granted and trying to win more of those in that mixed third. They’ve tried to do that by placing themselves as increasingly more in line with Conservative positions in many cases, and defining themselves as what they are against, in others, instead of charismatically packaging what they are for and selling the concepts of individual freedoms and fair playing fields.
What does that have to do with anything? If I defined liberty in terms of Arnold Palmer’s speech patterns, both the left and right would still want to tell him which words are forbidden and which are allowed.
I don’t object to your quibble, but there is no comparison between wanting to provide for the common welfare and wanting to provide for every conceivable need. It isn’t the taxing and spending by the left that I’m talking about. In fact, the right has taken that baton and run full tilt with it. I’m talking about the sentiment expressed by classical liberal Thoreau in his Walden: “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”
The equivalent would be for you to say, “Everyone has a right to declare words which are theirs and theirs alone to use, such as their names.” When I come along and say, “Naw, I can use your name if I need to,” you accuse me of being authoritarian for robbing your name-use from you.
i believe that by dissing private property protection, we increase liberty: private property protection is an authoritarian construct.
I’m tickled by some of my friends running away from the “liberal” badge (not to be confused with Liberal’s badge) and embracing “progressive”. If you’re embarassed by what you stand for, changing the word will only give you a short time of solace. As has been pointed out, “progressive” is already being defined by those same policies that define “liberal”. They don’t need a new word, they need a new belief system.
Personally, I see the fact that some people are running from the “liberal” label is a sign of hope.
It’s all trajectory. In the 1950s there weren’t very many people self-identifying as “conservatives”. Movement towards the left was like movement forward in time, it’s the way things went, to go the other direction would be backwards. Pendulum began to change direction between 1964 and 1968. A lot of it had to do with a fear that instead of newer better shinier fairer social norms we were somehow scooting into a world without norms. Anomie doesn’t play very well, and things had definitely become confusing. A retreat to a a simpler, old-fashioned world where we all knew what to expect began to look enticing to lots of folks.
The “inner June and Ward Cleaver” has been supplanted by more of an “inner Archie Bunker” or “inner Bill O’Reilly” —“I don’t wanna consider things, I know what’s what and things is what they is” — and as more and more of the conservative momentum is anti-intellectual and judgmental in tone, the pendulum may be reaching the boundaries of its rightwards sweep. We’ll see.
Indeed it is true that Conservatives will continue to dominate the national scene so long as they remain proud of what they are and Liberals try to deny their identity.
But this is the same phenomenom we’ve seen with other labels … getting defined by the most strident and obnoxious of your group because the best of your group are quieter.
If you understand that freedom doesn’t only mean freedom for you to believe what you want to believe, but also means freedom for the other guy to believe what you do not want him to believe, and you desire freedom anyway, then you are ready to be a Liberal.
If you understand that personal responsibility means more than “I got mine Bub.” and includes a personal responsibility to our society and our world as well, then you are ready to be a Liberal.
If you understand that we can respect each other and tolerate each other even though we do not approve of each other or like each other, then you are ready to be a Liberal.
And until those of us who are Liberals are willing to stand up and define ourselves for ourselves we will be stuck with definitions imposed by others and restricted to responding to the agenda of Conservatives rather than leading.
Nah. All we need is a spin machine to match the Pubbies. It’s ALL about perception and media, trying to throw substantive stuff in here just messes things up.
