Humans like to categorize, even beyond any useful application of the term. Hence people you like are either liberal or conservative depending on whether you view yourself as liberal or conservative, whils people you dislike are similarly categorized, only oppositely.
That doesn’t answer the OP’s question? Meh, too bad.
“Conservative” actually has a specific meaning in modern American political discourse that is different from what it means in other countries. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:
Actually, “Middle” is more often considered rude. Allow me to demonstrate . . .
Ludovic, I agree that people who call themselves conservative tend to favor preserving a part of the culture as it is now, but it seems to me that some of these same people do not talk as if they see “conservative” policies as being relative to the culture they are in. For, example based on the dictionary definition, not allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia is a conservative position because women are not now allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, but not allowing women to drive in the United States is not a conservative position because women are now allowed to drive in the United States. I feel that some people who call themselves conservative do not see conservative positions as being relative to the culture and would say that not allowing women to drive would not be a conservative position no matter what culture a person is in.
What may have happened is that some people started to apply the term conservative only to the policies that were conservative in the United States and “forgot” the original meaning of the term. This may be one of the reasons why people don’t use the traditional definitions for the term “Conservative” as it is defined in print dictionaries?
Now I see that some conservatives may want to preserve the status quo because they happen to think that the status quo in the culture that they live in is beneficial and that they may not be conservative if they lived in another culture. However, there are also conservatives who want to preserve the status quo because it is the status quo. The following quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln states that position:
“What is conservativism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?”
Leachcim, I wanted to return to your comment because I feel you bring up a very good point, which is the meaning of freedom in regard to the definition of Liberal. In 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt listed, in an address to Congress four “freedoms.” These are as follows:
“The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.”
“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.”
“The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.”
“The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world.”
These four freedoms can be divided into “freedoms of” (the first two) and “freedoms from” (the last two). “Freedom from want” and other “Freedom from” can in many cases increase the power of the government. While “freedoms of” are generally seen as restricting the power of government (example the first amendment to the US Constitution). It is possible that people who called themselves “liberal” started to include in the notion of freedom, “freedom from want” and started to advocate for actions such as the “New Deal” policies that increased the power of government. This allowed people who are opposed to increased power and size of the government to say that “liberals” are people who want to increase government power which I feel is diametrically opposed to the original meaning and the current definition of liberal. Also by including “freedom from want” in the definition of “liberal” the term “liberal” can thus mean anything and therefore become meaningless. So, I feel that including “freedoms from want” in the meaning of “liberal” maybe one of the factors which changed the traditional concept of “liberal.”
I also want to point out that The Random House College Dictionary includes in its definition of “liberal” “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, exp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties” and “favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.”
To all, I am very pleased with all of the responses to this thread and I have read them all so far. I am going on a trip and will not comment when I am gone.
Tom,
Words are constantly changing in meaning. There are some examples here:
There are many examples here:
A book with some good examples is C. S. Lewis’s Studies in Words. I can also recommend some dictionaries of word histories if you’d like. I don’t think you have a very good background in linguistics, TopTom. Changes in meanings are quite standard. This bothers you more with “liberal” and “conservative” than it does with other words because it’s an area that you’d like to keep unchanging and which you’d like to eliminate the vagueness in. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
TriPolar, you make a good point in regard to “It’s just a way of reducing everything to a binary state.”
Guinea, I would agree that “. . . there is a fair bit of illiberalism in US politics” and in thinking about this I feel I may have over spoke when I wrote that “. . . we live in a very Liberal society. . .” but I would still characterize our society as being liberal.
Bryan, I don’t object to people not answering my question I just point it out.
BrainGlutton, thank you for the quote. I feel it backs up my point. The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition for conservative are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” The writer then goes on to say that “Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment.” I would agree.
In regard to Burke’s six principles, while the first two “a deep suspicion of the power of the state” and “a preference for liberty over equality,” might have been conservative principles at Burke’s time, they are, based on traditional use and the definition in printed dictionaries, also liberal principles.
The writer of that quote also goes on to say that “To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.” He then goes on to say “In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles . . .” which means to me that the writer is maintaining that, based on Burke’s principles the American right is conservative and liberal. I think this high lights the idea that the term conservative is now used in vague ways and that the speakers and writers of the term might mean anything they want to at any given time.
Wendell, I agree that words change in meaning, but then one can look at dictionaries and see the change that is not the case with liberal and conservative. Also, even though I asked for people’s definitions of the terms, it seems to me that no one except for Leahcim, has offered a definition that differs from the dictionary. I am not quite clear if BrainGlutton was offering a definition by highlighting certain phases in the quote in her/his comment. Also, TriPolar seems to be saying that the terms liberal and conservative are just as meaningful as the terms red and blue. It seems to me that some people now use those terms in such different ways that it defies any concise definition.
If anyone feels I missed their definition kindly let me know.
Tom,
To all, here is my attempt at answering my own question, although I realize it is not a complete answer.
It seems to me that it starts with the terms liberal and conservative not being opposites, based on their traditional use and the current definitions found in printed dictionaries, but that some people wanted them to be opposites. So, it could have been that the people who wanted liberal and conservative to mean opposite things started to think, write and talk about liberal as if it means someone who advocates change. Then in the 1930’s many people started to advocate increased government spending and increased government involvement in the economy. At that time the people who thought about liberal as meaning advocating change started to think, write and talk about people who wanted to expand government as being “liberal,” which is the opposite of the traditional meaning of the term and of the definition from printed dictionaries. Further, the people who were in favor of expanding government may have felt that “liberal” was a nicer term than “socialist” and that those same people started to include in the concept of “freedom,” freedom from want.
Tom,
Which dictionaries are you looking at? For liberal the OED gives the definition you like right after it gives the one you don’t.
For what it’s worth, the first quotation of defintion 4a dates to 1772 and for 5a, 1761, which is only eleven years.
No, but they’re pretty much interchangeable. “Liberal” = “left,” “conservative” = “right.” That is also well-established.
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.
– Lords and Ladies, Terry Pratchett
To all, in my previous comment I presented the possibility that some people started to think, talk and write about liberals as being people in favor of expanding government and that this may have come about by some people trying to make the terms liberal and conservative opposites. What may have then happen as these people started to think, write and talk about liberals as being people in favor of expanding government, other people who wanted the term liberal and conservative to be opposites may have taken the position that if liberals wanted expanded government then conservatives would want smaller government, so some people then started to think, write and talk about liberals and conservatives in ways that were very different than that in printed dictionaries and very different than the traditional meanings of the words.
Tom,
RadicalPi, thank you very much for the information from the OED. The primary dictionaries that I looked at are “The Random House College Dictionary” and “Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged.” Also it’s not that I “like” a particular definition, it’s a matter of what I have found. In your quote of definition 4a the only part that could be seen to counter the definitions I have found is “. . . degree of state intervention in matters of economics and social justice . . .” Although I am not sure how much it runs counter to those definitions. That quote indicates to me that according to the OED a liberal may support some state intervention, but it doesn’t necessarily say that a liberal is one who is in favor of extreme socialism or large amounts of government intervention. It seems to me that some people now think, talk and write as if liberal means a person in favor of socialism or large amounts of government intervention and that is not supported by the OED definition. Also, “. . . degree of state intervention . . .” fits with “. . . little state intervention.” As to the term “left-wing” I would have to examine the OED’s definition of that term to determine if it counters the definitions I have found which are as follows:
A liberal is “favorable to progress or reform . . .” The term also means “of, or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies”; “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties”; “favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression”; “free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant”; “open-minded or tolerant esp., free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.”; “characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts”; “given freely or abundantly”; “not strict or rigorous; free; not literal”; etc. (The Random House College Dictionary). Webster’s Dictionary gives the following for liberal: “one that is open-minded or not strict in his observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways” and “an adherent or advocate of Liberalism esp. in terms of individual rights and freedom from arbitrary authority.”
To summarize I feel that your quote from the OED supports my original statement that “The term “Liberal” is defined as someone who is generally in favor of liberty and in favor of tolerance.” Generally in favor does not mean absolutely in favor.
Tom,
I don’t know what to say. “A degree of state intervention” is in no real way similar to “little state intervention.” The second is trying to keep state intervention to a minimum while the first is not.
Overall, you’re trying to force the two definitions of liberal into meanings they don’t have. Both definitions have pedigrees going back 250 years. There is no singe “traditional” definition.
RadicalPi, “A degree of state intervention” is a broad statement that does not rule out “A small degree of state intervention” as it does not rule out “A large degree of state intervention.” “A degree of state intervention” is consistent with my statement that a liberal is ‘generally in favor of liberty and in favor of tolerance. “Little state intervention” is clear and “little state intervention” could be considered “A degree of state intervention.” My reading of the OED definition is that it says that a liberal is “generally in favor of liberty and in favor of tolerance,” but that a liberal is less dogmatic than say a Libertarian. Are you claiming that the traditional meaning of liberal can refer to a person who is in favor of “little state intervention” and a person who is in favor of “A large degree of state intervention”?
In addition if you take the traditional meaning of liberal to be someone in favor of “A large degree of state intervention,” which the OED does not say, that would better support my claim that currently most people in the United States and many other industrialized democracies are both Liberal and Conservative at the same time and that Liberal and Conservative are not opposites.
Tom,