We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals

[Peter1469]

We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals (https://fee.org/articles/we-should-stop-calling-liberals-liberals/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook)

Modern American liberals are anything but liberal in the historical context of the word. They embrace the State as the answer to any problem.


As a helpful piece in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-origin-of-liberalism/283780/) shows, prior to the mid-18th century, the term “liberal” had “pre-political meanings, such as generous, tolerant, or suitable to one of noble or superior status—as in ‘liberal arts’ and ‘liberal education.’”

But then the Scots came along—most notably Adam Smith—and the word took on a more political meaning. Drawing from the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, Smith, in his Wealth of Nations and elsewhere, used the term “liberal” to refer to describe economic policies that minimized government regulation and allowed individuals greater freedom to pursue profit. According to Smith, such policies were in the best interests of nations.


This ethos is what is known today as “classical liberalism” —which is only really “classical” in modern retrospect, since at the time, it involved a significant break with the past.


The Change
But sometime during the latter part of the 19th century in Britain and America, the term “liberal” began to also be associated with the advocacy of government intervention. At first, as Professor Jonathan Parry writes (http://amzn.to/2bVJWgf), these interventions were more limited, for the purpose of “secur order, economy, free-market conditions and self-improvement.”


But in late-19th and early-20th-century America, the term “liberal” came to be increasingly associated with the Progressive support for expanded government intervention on behalf of social justice. Over the course of the 20th century, this meaning of “liberal” became dominant in the public consciousness, and additionally came to be linked to a belief in freedom [I]from the “limitations” of human nature and traditional mores.

Read the rest of the article at the link.

[Common]

Most of the liberals on line just call you names and accuse you of being anything from a racist to attila the hun and hitler if you dare disagree with them

[del]

what's in a name? that which we call a rose

by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Hal Jordan]

We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals (https://fee.org/articles/we-should-stop-calling-liberals-liberals/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook)

Modern American liberals are anything but liberal in the historical context of the word. They embrace the State as the answer to any problem.



Read the rest of the article at the link.

You're right regarding the historical context, but the thing is that we have a living language. This can be very frustrating at times, as words can change to the complete opposite of their origin.I tend to prefer the historical meanings, but that really doesn't matter. I do think it is good to know both the historical and modern meanings.

[FindersKeepers]

We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals (https://fee.org/articles/we-should-stop-calling-liberals-liberals/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook)

Modern American liberals are anything but liberal in the historical context of the word. They embrace the State as the answer to any problem.



I completely agree. The term no longer means what it once meant. From your link:


The principal presumption of today’s “liberalism” often lies with the status quo, or even with the idea that the government should “do something” to solve perceived problems.Google’s work enables us to establish who first used “liberal” in a political sense, what it meant, and how it spread. By knowing about the inception of “liberal” principles, we better understand the confusing semantics of politics today. Today, many of those who admire Adam Smith call themselves “classical liberals.”

It's the first definition that's causing us a lot of problems.

[Boris The Animal]

A local talk host in my area summed it up best. he described modern Liberals as today's Communists.

[Truth Detector]

We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals (https://fee.org/articles/we-should-stop-calling-liberals-liberals/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook)

Modern American liberals are anything but liberal in the historical context of the word. They embrace the State as the answer to any problem.

Read the rest of the article at the link.

I agree that they do not fit the traditional definition; what shall we call them? Communists? ;)

[Truth Detector]

Most of the liberals on line just call you names and accuse you of being anything from a racist to attila the hun and hitler if you dare disagree with them

It's an old and tired tactic used by leftists to shut down dissent. When you label someone like that, what you are trying to say is that their opinions do not matter. It has worked miserably for them over the last few decades; but because they are ignorant knuckle draggers, they're too stupid to figure that out.

[Green Arrow]

I agree that they do not fit the traditional definition; what shall we call them? Communists? ;)

If they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word, then they are not communists (or socialists) either.

[Truth Detector]

If they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word, then they are not communists (or socialists) either.

Wrong again; they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word because Communist describes them better. ;)

[Chris]

The Declaration of Independence is classical liberal thought. The Articles of Confederation were more or less, in that they represented true federalism where the power rested in the states. The Constitution was a counter-revolutionary move that strayed away from classical liberalism in creating a central government with the power to tax and regulate trade and keep a standing army to enforce it's regulations.

Moreover, as Hayek points out somewhere, there are actually two liberal traditions. There's the Scottish/British tradition of Locke, Smith and others. And there's the French/Continental tradition of Rousseau and others. As Hayek puts it: "What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it." The revolutionary founders followed the Scottish/British tradition. The counter revolution brought in the French/Continental tradition, which we've followed in imitation ever since.

The founders as revolutionaries were followers of the Scottish/British tradition.

[Green Arrow]

Wrong again; they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word because Communist describes them better. ;)

They don't meet the historical definition of "communist."

[Truth Detector]

They don't meet the historical definition of "communist."

Do educate me in your own words what the "traditional" definition of Communist might be.

[Chris]

Marx thought communism the state of primitive hunter-gatherers. Wrong of course, since the anthropological record shows division of labor, specialization and trade from the earliest man on.

[pjohns]

Modern liberals are certainly not proponents of liberal democracy, as it has been traditionally understood.

Sometimes I refer to them as progressives.

But this almost seems like a kindness--as though one sees their views as a natural progression from the darkness(?) of earlier times...

[Truth Detector]

Modern liberals are certainly not proponents of liberal democracy, as it has been traditionally understood.

Sometimes I refer to them as progressives.

But this almost seems like a kindness--as though one sees their views as a natural progression from the darkness(?) of earlier times...

It is funny how they wear the label "progressive" so proudly yet attempt to shun words like "liberal" or "leftist."

[Green Arrow]

Do educate me in your own words what the "traditional" definition of Communist might be.

A communist is someone that believes in the central tenets of communism: social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of money, class, and the state.

[valley ranch]

The true liberal is the most up tight, angry, closed minded~well all the things and and names the have for anyone who isn't on the wagon they're on.

Full of hate, they try to arrange a fight between two peoples or ideas or states or countries so they can run away with their coats.

I'm not talking about every person they enlist who climbs on their wagon for one of their contrived motives. I'm talking about the real Liberal up tight to an E string twang.

We may now and then run into a Card Carrying Liberal here, not the: Me too I'm a liberal! Not that kind, you know what I mean!

[Truth Detector]

A communist is someone that believes in the central tenets of communism: social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of money, class, and the state.

Sounds like a Progressive Liberal to me. What are the differences? You don't think commanding the Nations Health Care system as being ownership of the means of production? You don't think Progressives want to eliminate class or capitalism using the State?

But I am amused by the classic definition of Communism as abolishing the State when it requires the State to everything else it was intended for.

[valley ranch]

The Communist thinker is a ignorant, pretender~ educated to the point of his incompetence, the fact that what he forwards for the governing of mankind is and vague idea that, he know, will not work, has not worked and has been the murder and enslavement people and countries where ever it has reared it's ugly head.

The Communist activist is an a different animal, he wishes to bring this upon others, other peoples or nations while knowing the true evil of the system but never having been given the praise and honor for his greatness, his imagined intelligent thought, he works to bring this about upon those who have failed to see his deep thought as a fine thing.

[Peter1469]

I agree that they do not fit the traditional definition; what shall we call them? Communists? ;)
Progressives should do fine.

[Green Arrow]

Sounds like a Progressive Liberal to me. What are the differences? You don't think commanding the Nations Health Care system as being ownership of the means of production? You don't think Progressives want to eliminate class or capitalism using the State?

But I am amused by the classic definition of Communism as abolishing the State when it requires the State to everything else it was intended for.

Obamacare isn't government ownership of healthcare, it's just more government regulation of healthcare. There's a difference. Single-payer is basically government ownership of healthcare.

Hillary is in the 0.1% of Americans in terms of wealth, she is hardly pushing for the abolition of class or money, quite the opposite. Obama tried to privatize TVA. These people are not remotely communist.

[William]

A lot of words don't have the same meaning in different countries. In Australia a Liberal is an extreme conservative, and a member of the Australian version of the Tories - The Liberal Party.

I agree with the OP, you should stop using 'liberal' the way you do in the US. Both the Australians and the Americans are wrong in their use of 'liberal'.

This is how the word liberal is most often defined -


adjective: liberal

1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:marked by generosity: favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms: broad-minded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.

(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing,

2 (of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general, humanistic

[Truth Detector]

Obamacare isn't government ownership of healthcare, it's just more government regulation of healthcare. There's a difference. Single-payer is basically government ownership of healthcare.

If the Government is forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance and dictating what coverages should be and how much they should cost, the most indeed own the industry. It's funny that you think they do not. Obamacare was the first giant step to single payer. Only idiots and fools are fooled by claims to the contrary.


Hillary is in the 0.1% of Americans in terms of wealth, she is hardly pushing for the abolition of class or money, quite the opposite.

Putin and the former Gorbachev are in the 0.1% of Soviets in terms of wealth in their day; I am amused that you think Communism isn't about the ruling class living like Kings. BillyBob's and Hillary's wealth all comes from OTHERS and influence peddling. Fascinating that you think they aren't of a Commie mentality; control and power is what they are all about.


Obama tried to privatize TVA. These people are not remotely communist.

....for reasons completely opposite of why one would want to "privatize" a government entity. I am disappointed at the Republicans for not pushing that one through as well. But this notion that Obama is not all about Government control is misplaced in the extreme.

[Green Arrow]

If the Government is forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance and dictating what coverages should be and how much they should cost, the most indeed own the industry. It's funny that you think they do not. Obamacare was the first giant step to single payer. Only idiots and fools are fooled by claims to the contrary.



Putin and the former Gorbachev are in the 0.1% of Soviets in terms of wealth in their day; I am amused that you think Communism isn't about the ruling class living like Kings. BillyBob's and Hillary's wealth all comes from OTHERS and influence peddling. Fascinating that you think they aren't of a Commie mentality; control and power is what they are all about.



....for reasons completely opposite of why one would want to "privatize" a government entity. I am disappointed at the Republicans for not pushing that one through as well. But this notion that Obama is not all about Government control is misplaced in the extreme.

I can offer you an education, but I can't force you to learn.

[Chris]

If the Government is forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance and dictating what coverages should be and how much they should cost, the most indeed own the industry. It's funny that you think they do not. Obamacare was the first giant step to single payer. Only idiots and fools are fooled by claims to the contrary.



Putin and the former Gorbachev are in the 0.1% of Soviets in terms of wealth in their day; I am amused that you think Communism isn't about the ruling class living like Kings. BillyBob's and Hillary's wealth all comes from OTHERS and influence peddling. Fascinating that you think they aren't of a Commie mentality; control and power is what they are all about.



....for reasons completely opposite of why one would want to "privatize" a government entity. I am disappointed at the Republicans for not pushing that one through as well. But this notion that Obama is not all about Government control is misplaced in the extreme.


Government control is not communism. Under communism the workers would own the means of production, not the government. You really need to learn some basics of political terminology.

[pjohns]

A lot of words don't have the same meaning in different countries. In Australia a Liberal is an extreme conservative, and a member of the Australian version of the Tories - The Liberal Party.

I agree with the OP, you should stop using 'liberal' the way you do in the US. Both the Australians and the Americans are wrong in their use of 'liberal'.

This is how the word liberal is most often defined -

Dictionary.com--which reflects American usage--says the following, in regard to the definition of the word:


adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberalism), especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal-arts).

13. of, relating to, or befitting a freeman.


noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Please note, especially, the first two definitions of the word; and combine that, please, with the fact that the definitions are listed in the order of their most frequent usage.

Oh, and the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says--as the very first thing--that the word means "believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism."

[Ethereal]

It's an excellent point.

And the application of that label to people who are aggressively illiberal in their outlook speaks to the Orwellian environment we inhabit.

[Ethereal]

You're right regarding the historical context, but the thing is that we have a living language. This can be very frustrating at times, as words can change to the complete opposite of their origin.I tend to prefer the historical meanings, but that really doesn't matter. I do think it is good to know both the historical and modern meanings.

Yes, language is living, but that doesn't mean some self-serving propagandists can change the language as and when they please.

Liberal in terms of its etymology and its historical usage meant someone who believes in liberty.

Since when did it come to mean the exact opposite of that? Only after the use of Orwellian propaganda by shills and liars.

We don't have to accept that simply because language is living.

[Ethereal]

The best way of describing faux liberals is as state socialists.

They believe in the forced collectivization of wealth and its centralized redistribution.

[Ethereal]

Progressives should do fine.

They shouldn't be called that either as their economic policies are highly regressive.

State socialist, please.

[Peter1469]

They shouldn't be called that either as their economic policies are highly regressive.

State socialist, please.


Got it.

[Chris]

State socialism/capitalism, doesn't matter, not good. Liberty, good.

[Hal Jordan]

Yes, language is living, but that doesn't mean some self-serving propagandists can change the language as and when they please.

Liberal in terms of its etymology and its historical usage meant someone who believes in liberty.

Since when did it come to mean the exact opposite of that? Only after the use of Orwellian propaganda by shills and liars.

We don't have to accept that simply because language is living.

I hate that it became this, but we do have to recognize the social meaning of the word. It doesn't mean we can't discuss the proper meaning. I would be fully in favor of trying to bring it back to the older meaning..

[Ethereal]

I hate that it became this, but we do have to recognize the social meaning of the word. It doesn't mean we can't discuss the proper meaning. I would be fully in favor of trying to bring it back to the older meaning..

I don't have to recognize anything, guy... :grin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

[Hal Jordan]

I don't have to recognize anything, guy... :grin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

True, but language is only useful if it's understood by all parties.

[pjohns]

I hate that it became this, but we do have to recognize the social meaning of the word. It doesn't mean we can't discuss the proper meaning.

There is both prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Prescriptivists wish to prescribe the meaning of a given term, based upon its etymology.

Descriptivists wish to say what a term commonly means in modern usage.

For instance, prescriptivists will insist that "aggravate" should not be used as a synonym for "annoy"--it means to exacerbate--but descriptivists will take the opposite position.

And this is just one example, among many...

[William]

True, but language is only useful if it's understood by all parties.

That's true, but accepting only the popular, uneducated meaning of a word can be a mistake, as language is always changed by the ignorant and lazy, and we narrow down the usefulness of the word. So if we are clever, we can use 'liberal' with its original and proper meaning (generous, accepting of change, etc) in general conversation, and its political meaning (whether that is left wing - as in the USA - or right wing - as in Australia) in the political context. We need to remember that many words, like 'liberal', do not have the same popular meaning (and not understood by all parties) in different societies - but they have the same dictionary meaning everywhere. :smiley:

[William]

There is both prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Prescriptivists wish to prescribe the meaning of a given term, based upon its etymology.

Descriptivists wish to say what a term commonly means in modern usage.

For instance, prescriptivists will insist that "aggravate" should not be used as a synonym for "annoy"--it means to exacerbate--but descriptivists will take the opposite position.

And this is just one example, among many...

Aggravate does not mean to annoy - it means to make something worse (you can aggravate a situation but you can't aggravate a person). The problem with what you call 'descriptivism' is that is just a way of being lazy with language. It's like making up verbs out of nouns cos you can't think of the right word. Like 'parenting' children - the traditional word is 'rearing' (and even that has been corrupted into 'raising').

I'm no expert on language, and am always in trouble for using the wrong word (or spelling it incorrectly) but even I can see the problems with just making up words and meanings cos you don't know the right word. It simply makes language too inexact and not understood in other parts of the world. Local slang is fine - it happens everywhere - but we shouldn't pretend that it is the correct use of the language.

[Hal Jordan]

That's true, but accepting only the popular, uneducated meaning of a word can be a mistake, as language is always changed by the ignorant and lazy, and we narrow down the usefulness of the word. So if we are clever, we can use 'liberal' with its original and proper meaning (generous, accepting of change, etc) in general conversation, and its political meaning (whether that is left wing - as in the USA - or right wing - as in Australia) in the political context. We need to remember that many words, like 'liberal', do not have the same popular meaning (and not understood by all parties) in different societies - but they have the same dictionary meaning everywhere. :smiley:

I never advocated only accepting the popular meaning. As I said, I think the original meaning is important, and many words we use have sadly lost their meaning by now. The thing is, if we use the classical meanings in conversation, the conversation will get confused and, in the end, nothing of substance will be discussed. I prefer to have terms that have multiple meanings defined for the context of a serious discussion. Also, dictionaries do have different definitions in different countries. For example, an American dictionary does not say a boot is part of a car, because here, it's not.

[OGIS]

We Should Stop Calling "Liberals" Liberals (https://fee.org/articles/we-should-stop-calling-liberals-liberals/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook)

Modern American liberals are anything but liberal in the historical context of the word. They embrace the State as the answer to any problem.



Read the rest of the article at the link.

troll thread

[OGIS]

You're right regarding the historical context, but the thing is that we have a living language. This can be very frustrating at times, as words can change to the complete opposite of their origin.I tend to prefer the historical meanings, but that really doesn't matter. I do think it is good to know both the historical and modern meanings.

Well said.

[OGIS]

If they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word, then they are not communists (or socialists) either.

Exactly. So-called "conservative" activists are doing the same selective choosing the are quick to accuse liberals of.

[OGIS]

Wrong again; they are not liberals because they don't meet the historical definition of the word because Communist describes them better. ;)

BZZT! Circular logic alert!

[OGIS]

Obamacare isn't government ownership of healthcare, it's just more government regulation of healthcare. There's a difference. Single-payer is basically government ownership of healthcare.

Hillary is in the 0.1% of Americans in terms of wealth, she is hardly pushing for the abolition of class or money, quite the opposite. Obama tried to privatize TVA. These people are not remotely communist.

Reason and logic in a Troll Thread? Perhaps a tad quixotic.

[OGIS]

I can offer you an education, but I can't force you to learn.

something about pearls.....

[OGIS]

Government control is not communism. Under communism the workers would own the means of production, not the government. You really need to learn some basics of political terminology.

Amen.

[OGIS]

The best way of describing faux liberals is as state socialists.

They believe in the forced collectivization of wealth and its centralized redistribution.

So are "capitalists" who, for example, use the power of the state to create monopolies that give them rentier profits actually state socialists?

[OGIS]

They shouldn't be called that either as their economic policies are highly regressive.

So are "conservatives" who call for flat tax and universal sales tax actually progressives?

[OGIS]

I don't have to recognize anything, guy... :grin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng

Whatevs.

But YT, when your video ended, had a link to another video that I think is tangentially relevant to this thread: people need to think about what is actually going on here between the "Job Creators," and the police, and the drone flyers who are on public land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma0HoEDSsKc

Also, think about that "public land" concept. There is a small minority of "conservatives" and "libertarians" who want ZERO public land. All land, everywhere, privately owned.

Consider the freedoms in the above video in that context.

[Peter1469]

troll thread

Incorrect. But then you post silly crap all the time, so you likely don't have a clue as to what a troll thread is. This is a serious topic about the actual meaning of a word and the misuse of that word by people like you.