In my honest opinion, Liberalism means that you accept people on what they are and what they do.

If they're a druggie, love them.
If they're gay, love them.
If they're doing something wrong, love them.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. That's my point on being Liberal, no more no less.

i think most liberals would agree on the first two, fewer on the third. those are supposed to be conservative christian ideals as well, of course.

to play devil's advocate, and i think i've said this here before, a lot of complaints against some liberals are valid. many ARE intolerant of those who don't share their values. many DO want to control everyone else's lives. of course, this is true of many conservatives also, those are traits that cross party lines.

i think most liberals would agree on the first two, fewer on the third. those are supposed to be conservative christian ideals as well, of course.

to play devil's advocate, and i think i've said this here before, a lot of complaints against some liberals are valid. many ARE intolerant of those who don't share their values. many DO want to control everyone else's lives. of course, this is true of many conservatives also, those are traits that cross party lines.


It's real hard to love someone when they're doing someting bad, because so much damage can occur.

Look at the Spanish Inquisition, for example.

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.


From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal


That is the TRUE meaning of a liberal. However, many people (liberal and conservatives alike and just about everyone in between) have the attitude that "my way is the only way". 



Cat

The reason I have trouble self-identifying as a liberal is too few people nowadays understand what the political concept means, even those who identify as such.

If you look at the first two definitions from the citation Cat provided....

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

...you get a clearer picture than you will from our pop culture. 

A liberal society takes chances.  It does not adhere to tradition because some doctrinal authority says it must.  Liberalism gave us the civil rights movement but it also gave us hardcore pornography.

The biggest flaw in liberal thinking is a lack of ability to curb dysfunctional behavior.  For example, liberals will object to school uniforms on the grounds that they suppress the students' right to express themselves.  However, school uniforms also take status symbols and clique insignia out of the equasion thus keeping a better focus on education.  There are many ways to express oneself.  Attire should be the least of them, but given the opportunity, kids will make it premium.

Anyway...

However, many people (liberal and conservatives alike and just about everyone in between) have the attitude that "my way is the only way". 



Cat


And, even more unfortunate, they tend to be the loud ones that get most of the air time. ::)

And, even more unfortunate, they tend to be the loud ones that get most of the air time. ::)



You are so right.



Cat

As far as American liberals go, I'll never get the anti-gun thing.  I guess I'm more of a Libertarian when it comes to social issues...

As far as American liberals go, I'll never get the anti-gun thing.  I guess I'm more of a Libertarian when it comes to social issues...

I'm not anti-gun.  I'm anti-shooting-people-with-guns.
:-\\

Good...  that means you're a sensible liberal.

A sensible liberal is consistent in staying out of people's personal lives, unless crime is involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlqOvxS28Vg&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlqOvxS28Vg&feature=user

Salient points from the Young Turks, but I wouldn't be so hasty to write off the Right.  Not yet.

I used to watch FOX News much more than I do now.  I watched it as a sort of parade-of-the-horribles entertainment.  I didn't lose interest because I disagree with FOX, I lost interest because they've been saying the SAME crap for 12 years!  It's just tired. It's as predictable as the tides and the phases of the moon.  You already know what Hannity or O'Reilly is going to say about issue X, so why bother?  Same thing happened with Limbaugh, but it happened ten years earlier. 

Maybe it's just me...maybe it's that the way things are going and FOX could go dark within a decade.

???


Good...  that means you're a sensible liberal.


Hey, don't interrupt.  You didn't let me finish!  I was saying, I'm anti-shooting-people-with-guns and pro-shooting-people-with-suction-cup-arrows!!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/anim-jjd.gif

As far as American liberals go, I'll never get the anti-gun thing.  I guess I'm more of a Libertarian when it comes to social issues...


I'm possibly a Libertarian as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlqOvxS28Vg&feature=user


He makes some good points, but there are a number of obstacles for liberalism.  First, the so-called liberal media is heavily conservative on most economic issues.  Second, social liberalism will always be at a disadvantage in rural areas.

The real wave of liberalism will come when the faster growing red states become more urban.  Rural viewpoints will dwindle in their significance, and so social liberalism (in most cases) will dominate American politics.  Economic liberalism's fate is less certain.

I would advocate Classical Liberalism, which seems to have nothing to do with today's "Liberalism".

I remember when I took that political map test that Cat (I think) posted.  I was a little disappointed when it said I was a libertarian and not a liberal.  The Liberals that I hang out with think that Libertarians are all out west on their cattle ranches. 

I'm pro-gun, I'm just worried about who can get their hands on them.  I grew up with a loaded shotgun on the mantle.  No one in my family has ever shot anyone.

I don't like the fact that Religion is included in Politics and policy making.  It never works.

Individual Rights, I'm all for it.  Does the government really have the right to question what you do.  Especially when you are not to question what the government does?

I hate to say it, but I'm more of a pragmatist.  Talk about a word that gets negative connotations.  But really, when you look at it, don't all successful political systems have to learn to be pragmatic or perish?
???

I would advocate Classical Liberalism, which seems to have nothing to do with today's "Liberalism".


Thanks for making my point for me :)

I'm with Locke, Voltaire, Washingon, and Jefferson.  Your right to swing your fist ends at my face, but beyond that, you have the right to be wrong.  I may detest what you say, but I'll defend to my death (or in my more honest moments when confronted with the realith of post-9/11 America, I'll defend to your death :) your right to say it. 

Democrat:  You have the right to do anything you want with your body.  But your money isn't really yours, it belongs to the state. We're going to take things from you for the common good.

Republcian:  You have the right to do anything you want with your money.  But your body isn't really yours, it belongs to the state. Take only the drugs we sell you, and don't even think about sex outside of marriage.

Classical Liberal / Libertarian:  Let both of those asses be set to grind corn.

Thanks for making my point for me

You are most welcome!  :)

Democrat:  You have the right to do anything you want with your body.  But your money isn't really yours, it belongs to the state. We're going to take things from you for the common good.i'm curious: do you think citizens have any financial responsibility to a nation that keeps them relatively safe from rampant crime, helps educates their children, advocates for them on the world stage, and provides highways, public transportation, museums and civic life, libraries, a social safety net for the destitute and disabled, and a variety of other services without which we would be living in a very ugly civilization indeed? there really is a tradeoff to be had there, you know, it's not just "taxes are bad and i can fend for myself." the tiger philosopher hobbes once said, "the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short," and without a reasonably funded government that's what we end up with. just ask the people in new orleans.

whether the current government provides these services well is another question, but if not, the answer is probably reform these services, not to just abolish the government as the libertarians seem bent on doing.

i'm curious: do you think citizens have any financial responsibility to a nation that keeps them relatively safe from rampant crime, helps educates their children, advocates for them on the world stage, and provides highways, public transportation, museums and civic life, libraries, a social safety net for the destitute and disabled, and a variety of other services without which we would be living in a very ugly civilization indeed? there really is a tradeoff to be had there, you know, it's not just "taxes are bad and i can fend for myself." the tiger philosopher hobbes once said, "the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short," and without a reasonably funded government that's what we end up with. just ask the people in new orleans.


Loosely, I'd say government is supposed to be to provide for the common defense, but to promote (which is not the same thing as to provide for) the general welfare.  It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, so let's break these things out. 

To rise above the Hobbesian state of nature, we delegate a monopoly on force to the government.  Thus:

- keeps them relatively safe from rampant crime.

- and also under "provides for the common defense", the military. (which you completely omitted, but which I'm including here.  I'm not saying the DoD has to be $400B/year, merely that a government has the obligation to defend its citizens against external as well as internal threats.)

I'm willing to invest in something that can be reasonably expected to have a positive return.  Promote the general welfare, that is.  Thus:

- educates their children (even though our current government does a worse job of it than private schools, and it's probably doing a worse job than private schools because the schools don't have any competition.  I'd be for a voucher system here.)

- provides highways, (basically, this is an investment in economic efficiency.  Although the privately-owned railroads did a pretty darn good job opening up the west, but they had a lot of government help in the form of a government with a monopoly on force :)

- museums/libraries (it's education for adults, and you can lump "civic life" in there if you can articulate it somewhat more clearly than "Senator XYZ's cousin wants $100K/year for life to manage groundskeeping for the park with his uncle's name on it")

I'm iffy on ideology, but generally supportive as a practical matter, on:

- public transportation, (can't someone make a profit out of running a bus route, especially if the taxpayers are already paying for the roads!  I'd be willing to compromise here, on the grounds that if we're paying for the roads, why not pay for a few buses to alleviate traffic on them... and rail's a pretty efficient way to transport people, and we helped the railroads get built, right?  Why not go the next step, and subsidize air travel, too?  Where do you want to draw that line?)

I haven't a clue about:

- advocates for them on the world stage

because that's so vague it could mean anything.  Trade junkets and treaty negotiations come under day-to-day governmental operations, which is fair ball, but I have a hunch that's not what you meant.

I've got a beef with:

- a social safety net for the destitute and disabled, (because how "destitute" is "destitute"? :)

More to the point, that's what insurance and charity is for, and because every time people scream about defense spending being 50% of the budget, I've gotta remind them that they're talking about the "discretionary" budget.  The friggin' "mandatory" or "entitlement" spending is what's killing us, because it's already more than twice what even our already-grossly-bloated DoD spending, and it's growing faster too.

The words "discretionary" and "mandatory" are Orwellian twists of phrase; in congresspeak, "discretionary" spending happens for things where the programme isn't funded unless it passes a vote, and "mandatory" is spending where it's automatically spent unless someone writes a law to stop it. 

The only difference between "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending is the difference between "I go to the store and buy records" versus "I subscribed to Columbia House back in the 80s and they just keep sending me CDs and billing me every month".  Continued Columbia House membership isn't mandatory, you can cancel any time you want.  In the same way, Congress passed the laws that put these "mandatory" programmes in place, and they can just as legally pass laws that change those programmes or cut them altogether. There's nothing mandatory about any of this, and the the dollars don't know or care about the distinction.  Anyone who tries to convince you there's a fundamental difference between discretionary and entitlement spending is either an idiot who doesn't know what "fungible" means, or he thinks you're an idiot who doesn't know what "fungible" means.

Having said that, on infrastructure/positive return on investment grounds, I'd be happy to provide some health care.  For instance:

- Vaccinations (dirt cheap, and herd immunity benefits all members of the herd)
- Basic preventive/diagnostic/maintenance services (also dirt cheap, employees are more productive (and the unemployed are a lot more employable!) when a $100 1-hour doctor's appointment can save a person from 4-6 weeks of being sick/injured, and/or the time commitment of taking care of sick/injured offspring or elders...)
- Some level of catastrophic insurance (but it'd have to compete with the private insurance market, because that's something the free market could provide, even though we don't have a free market in health insurance today)

End-of-life care is the really big elephant in the room -- all forms of health care (whether purchased outright from a hospital and paid for by the patient, purchased by an insurance company and paid for by a customer' premiums, or whether purchased by the government and paid for by tax dollars) would be a lot cheaper if dying weren't so damn expensive.

I'll borrow a car analogy for that.  Oil changes are cheap.  Engine replacements are expensive.  Fixing up a totalled rustbucket is cost-prohibitive.  Over a 20-30 year lifespan of a $20000 car that gets driven 300K miles, you'll have 100 oil changes at $30 ($3000), maybe one new engine ($10000), but eventually a big accident or the rust monster ($50K+ to rebuild it from scratch and it'll never be quite the same) will get you in the end.  Sometimes you just gotta accept that. 

There's a reason auto manufacturers offer "free dealer service" during the first 2-3 years of a vehicle lifespan (oil changes / doctors' checkups), have 10-year powertrain warranties (catastrophic health care), but if you want a life-of-the-vehicle warranty against a rollover accident and/or rust on every body panel (the $500,000 case of cancer that strikes at age 30 while you've still got a million bucks worth of earning potential in you, or the series of organ failures that starts to cascade during the last few weeks of life that we used to call "dying of old age"), you're going to find that such policies are either not for sale or are cost-prohibitive. 

TANSTAAFL.  There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  If you can't buy $1M worth of health insurance, you need to find a way to make dying cost less than $1M.  If we continue to spend $100K+ per person on the last six months of life, it doesn't matter where the money comes from and how big the risk pool is; health insurance is going to continue to be unaffordable.

As for retirement savings, yeah, you're on your own.  Again, TANSTAAFL.  Although with half the budget (Social Security phased out, Medicare/Medicaid halved in favor of paying for maintenance/upkeep/repair, rather than on dragging out the death process, and cutting DoD funding to a defensive posture) gone, we could afford to redirect some of that funding into Manhattan Project-level work into energy, infrastructure, and engineering (both mechanical and bio) and still run such a large surplus that we could afford to cut taxes and/or pay down the national debt. 

We might even get lucky and get returns on investment like a cure for cancer (to further reduce health care expenditures), or energy that really is too cheap to meter (to further reduce our need for the guns we presently use to secure supplies of oil), and the side effects of having cleaner air and happier lives.  Yadda yadda, revolution of rising expectations, spiral of technological/economic progress that turns our little patch of Civilization 0 (there's only one revision of the game, and no sequel) into the patch that beats all the other little patches in the race to take off to Alpha Centauri (OK, maybe there is a sequel, but you've gotta get off the rock to play.)

None of which will ever happen, of course.  There are no governments on earth that exist to to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty; they all exist merely to keep themselves in power.  So our species game of Civ 0 stays at the status quo for our lives, and the revolution of lowered expectations drags us back into the muck for a few more centuries until someone comes up with a better way to play, or a passing asteroid ends the game.


the answer is probably reform these services, not to just abolish the government as the libertarians seem bent on doing.


False dichotomy.  Libertarians aren't interested in abolishing government, they're interested in reforming what government's about, and in so doing, laying the foundation for the sort of government that might actually be interested in providing the sorts of services its citizens seek.  Until you have a government that's interested in something other than keeping itself in power and increasing its control over its citizens, any attempt to get a government to provide these sorts of services is ultimately doomed to failure. 

The big question of how you reform the aims of government is the potential dealbreaker for libertarianism and for the Western Enlightenment in general.  Ultimately, governments are composed of humans, and humanity is a 60,000 year veneer covering three billion years spent in the State of Nature.  Even those of us who stand tallest are still gonna be pretty nasty and brutish.  Libertarians argue that we can outgrown that, but maybe we're wrong.  Maybe the Chinese were right all along, and Confucian ideals such as "stability" and "order" (as opposed to "individual rights" and "freedom") are how you keep a culture alive for millenia while all the little democracies flare up and fizzle out in time frames of centuries.  Your guess is as good as mine on that; that bet will probably take 5000 years to settle.