Would you call this a "Liberal"?

[Laika]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal". The reason I ask is because the way I use the term is quite "old-fashioned" based on the relationship with enlightenment ideas and refers to a broad consensus of ideas that cover both right and leftwing positions and includes alot of conservatives. This is speaking as someone "outside" of liberalism looking in so its pretty broad.

• A Liberal supports the rule of law. Liberals commonly support systems of government that can range from a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK) or a constitutional Republic (such as the USA) because the common denominator is that the rule of law takes precedence over the arbitary "rule of men" such as by personal dictatorship.
• Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy as a source of tryanny by majority in which majority rule is considered a threat to individual rights. This can often be related to the fear of the poor acting as a majority to attack the right of private property through wealth redistribution and "socialism". When liberals use the term "democracy" they refer to representative systems based on elections (ussually multi-party) based on universal suffrage.
• Liberals can support free markets and mixed economic systems with some public ownership. Private Ownership predominates however because Liberals believe there is a close relationship between economic (as in free trade and private property) and political liberty. More left wing Liberals can support economic and social rights provided for by social security and progressive taxation such as FDRs New Deal. Liberals can support fiscal conservativism as a means to limit the size of government and support keynsian economics of "tax and spend" to expand the role of government.
• Liberals support individual liberty based on a theory of natural rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by ones peers, etc.
• Liberals generally support legal the separation of church and state (although some may argue the need for religion in public life to enforce certian moral standards of conduct).
• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

Do you think this is generally accurate to describe liberals? If not, what term would you use? would you use several terms?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal". The reason I ask is because the way I use the term is quite "old-fashioned" based on the relationship with enlightenment ideas and refers to a broad consensus of ideas that cover both right and leftwing positions and includes alot of conservatives. This is speaking as someone "outside" of liberalism looking in so its pretty broad.

• A Liberal supports the rule of law. Liberals commonly support systems of government that can range from a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK) or a constitutional Republic (such as the USA) because the common denominator is that the rule of law takes precedence over the arbitary "rule of men" such as by personal dictatorship.
• Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy as a source of tryanny by majority in which majority rule is considered a threat to individual rights. This can often be related to the fear of the poor acting as a majority to attack the right of private property through wealth redistribution and "socialism". When liberals use the term "democracy" they refer to representative systems based on elections (ussually multi-party) based on universal suffrage.
• Liberals can support free markets and mixed economic systems with some public ownership. Private Ownership predominates however because Liberals believe there is a close relationship between economic (as in free trade and private property) and political liberty. More left wing Liberals can support economic and social rights provided for by social security and progressive taxation such as FDRs New Deal. Liberals can support fiscal conservativism as a means to limit the size of government and support keynsian economics of "tax and spend" to expand the role of government.
• Liberals support individual liberty based on a theory of natural rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by ones peers, etc.
• Liberals generally support legal the separation of church and state (although some may argue the need for religion in public life to enforce certian moral standards of conduct).
• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

Do you think this is generally accurate to describe liberals? If not, what term would you use? would you use several terms?

It seems inaccurate because it would include me (with some chafing).
And even though I identify as a "liberal" (in addition to "libertarian), I do
not meet the RF definition required to post in that restricted forum.
(They're adamant about that.)

 

[metis]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal". The reason I ask is because the way I use the term is quite "old-fashioned" based on the relationship with enlightenment ideas and refers to a broad consensus of ideas that cover both right and leftwing positions and includes alot of conservatives. This is speaking as someone "outside" of liberalism looking in so its pretty broad.

• A Liberal supports the rule of law. Liberals commonly support systems of government that can range from a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK) or a constitutional Republic (such as the USA) because the common denominator is that the rule of law takes precedence over the arbitary "rule of men" such as by personal dictatorship.
• Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy as a source of tryanny by majority in which majority rule is considered a threat to individual rights. This can often be related to the fear of the poor acting as a majority to attack the right of private property through wealth redistribution and "socialism". When liberals use the term "democracy" they refer to representative systems based on elections (ussually multi-party) based on universal suffrage.
• Liberals can support free markets and mixed economic systems with some public ownership. Private Ownership predominates however because Liberals believe there is a close relationship between economic (as in free trade and private property) and political liberty. More left wing Liberals can support economic and social rights provided for by social security and progressive taxation such as FDRs New Deal. Liberals can support fiscal conservativism as a means to limit the size of government and support keynsian economics of "tax and spend" to expand the role of government.
• Liberals support individual liberty based on a theory of natural rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by ones peers, etc.
• Liberals generally support legal the separation of church and state (although some may argue the need for religion in public life to enforce certian moral standards of conduct).
• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

Do you think this is generally accurate to describe liberals? If not, what term would you use? would you use several terms?

Ya, I think these are largely valid points, and I personally agree with all of them, btw.

 

[Kemosloby]

No, liberal means those who rally behind corrupt politicians who associate themselves with the democratic party, whereas conservatives rally behind the republican version of the same.

 

[columbus]

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal".

Both @Lyndon and @Revoltingest are liberals. The word liberal hasn't any important meaning anymore.
Neither does conservative. People will argue that RoevWade must remain as it is, because that's just how we do things in the USA. That is the essence of conservatism. Elective abortion is now the conservative opinion.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal". The reason I ask is because the way I use the term is quite "old-fashioned" based on the relationship with enlightenment ideas and refers to a broad consensus of ideas that cover both right and leftwing positions and includes alot of conservatives. This is speaking as someone "outside" of liberalism looking in so its pretty broad.

• A Liberal supports the rule of law. Liberals commonly support systems of government that can range from a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK) or a constitutional Republic (such as the USA) because the common denominator is that the rule of law takes precedence over the arbitary "rule of men" such as by personal dictatorship.
• Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy as a source of tryanny by majority in which majority rule is considered a threat to individual rights. This can often be related to the fear of the poor acting as a majority to attack the right of private property through wealth redistribution and "socialism". When liberals use the term "democracy" they refer to representative systems based on elections (ussually multi-party) based on universal suffrage.
• Liberals can support free markets and mixed economic systems with some public ownership. Private Ownership predominates however because Liberals believe there is a close relationship between economic (as in free trade and private property) and political liberty. More left wing Liberals can support economic and social rights provided for by social security and progressive taxation such as FDRs New Deal. Liberals can support fiscal conservativism as a means to limit the size of government and support keynsian economics of "tax and spend" to expand the role of government.
• Liberals support individual liberty based on a theory of natural rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by ones peers, etc.
• Liberals generally support legal the separation of church and state (although some may argue the need for religion in public life to enforce certian moral standards of conduct).
• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

Do you think this is generally accurate to describe liberals? If not, what term would you use? would you use several terms?

"liberal" is not a religious organization. There is no required dogma. You will find that although people who self-classify as liberals generally agree on broad concepts, there are no absolutes. For instance, I tend to be very liberal minded on social issues, but my fiscal views could often be classified as Conservative. By that I mean that I do not support rampant tax and spend policies.

Those concepts can seem to run counter at first blush. But I do not think the problem is not enough money, but that we **** it away on the wrong priorities.

 

[Sunstone]

• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

I disagree with the notion that a liberal can oppose civil rights based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. To do so would almost certainly in practice amount to an appeal to some criterion (such as tradition or the authority of some personage, etc.) that either was not supported by reason, or ran counter to reason, and which was thus in conflict with liberal support for deciding such matters on the basis of reason, science, etc.

 

[Quetzal]

Have liberals not done this for the majority of history?

Example, please?

 

[Revoltingest]

Both @Lyndon and @Revoltingest are liberals. The word liberal hasn't any important meaning anymore.
Neither does conservative. People will argue that RoevWade must remain as it is, because that's just how we do things in the USA. That is the essence of conservatism. Elective abortion is now the conservative opinion.
Tom

Lyndon & me in the same boat?
I'm give'n him a haircut!

 

[pearl]

Personally I would prefer the term 'progressive' rather than liberal. Progressive is open to change without throwing out all that went before.

 

[Quetzal]

Personally I would prefer the term 'progressive' rather than liberal. Progressive is open to change without throwing out all that went before.

I prefer this term as well, if I have to take one.

 

[sun rise]

It seems inaccurate because it would include me.
And even though I identify as a "liberal" (in addition to "libertarian), I do
not meet the RF definition required to post in that restricted forum.
(They're adamant about that.)

As a libertarian, you view government much more as a problem than liberals do.

 

[Quetzal]

As a libertarian, you view government much more as a problem than liberals do.

I think that's fair. Libertarians want a smaller government, right?

 

[Quetzal]

Well the liberals haven't been socially progressive forever. There were even ones (like Hillary) who voted for gay marriage being a state issue and not a federal.

Ah, I follow you now. Just because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they are social progressives by default. I will say, however, they are more likely to be, in my opinion.

 

[Augustus]

Have liberals not done this for the majority of history?

Many have. Early liberals, from Locke to Jefferson either owned slaves or condoned slavery. Liberalism was very big on property rights after all.

Also liberalism was a product of the Enlightenment, as was scientific racism. The White Man's Burden can be described as a liberal idea, it certainly was a progressive one.

 

[Laika]

I disagree with the notion that a liberal can oppose civil rights based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. To do so would almost certainly in practice amount to an appeal to some criterion (such as tradition or the authority of some personage, etc.) that either was not supported by reason, or ran counter to reason, and which was thus in conflict with liberal support for deciding such matters on the basis of reason, science, etc.

Example, please?

Many liberals would use reason to argue that restrictions of the rights are certian groups are necessary based on "laws of nature" in which these groups are inferior.

Racial segregation can be understood as a liberal concept as "seperate but equal" protects both individual rights and equality before the law. Some would argue "forced" intergration is a violation of individual rights. As @Augustus put it, liberals appealed to scientific racism as a justification for such views in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Liberals also support eugenic policies atound this time as they were -for the time- considered reasonable and scientific.

Liberalism has come a long way from giving the right to vote based on property qualifications, gender, race, etc. But the possibility of articulating such arguments that "natural" differences and inequalities should be reflected in legal differences as a way to assert individual rights is still possible. As @Rowan said Liberal does not necessarily mean progressive.

 

[Laika]

It seems inaccurate because it would include me.
And even though I identify as a "liberal" (in addition to "libertarian), I do
not meet the RF definition required to post in that restricted forum.
(They're adamant about that.)

Aside from that, wouldn't you agree that social liberals (i.e. Many Democrats) and libertarians essentially have the same intellectual roots in classical liberalism of the late18th and early 19th century?

 

[psychoslice]

If they cry and carry on about losing, then yes that is a liberal.

 

[Augustus]

Liberal does not necessarily mean progressive.

Political language is 'fun'. Neoconservatives were both liberals and progressives, yet not conservatives.

Small p progressives included the commies, the Nazis, social democrats and neocons. Liberals include Hayek, Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Some people might say Sanders is 'ultra-liberal', whereas others would say Friedman is 'ultra-liberal'.

'dem gone broken 'dem words there.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a libertarian, you view government much more as a problem than liberals do.

The modern N Americastanian use of the word "liberal" is not the only kind.
I'm a "classical liberal" (or "Jeffersonian liberal"), which is also defined
differently from the RF definition (which claims equivalence to "conservative").
So in the strange provincial little world of RF, I'm only "libertarian".
Thus, the OP's definition doesn't work here.

RF definitions are indeed screwy....
The Capitalist Only Forum allows socialists under the specific guise of "state capitalism", eg, the old Soviet system.
The Libertarian Only Forum allows liberals (as defined by RF) who advocate economic authoritarianism (socialism).
The Feminist Only Forum has a fine definition, but Mr Charlie effectively prohibits many kinds
of feminists, eg, libertarian feminists, egalitarians. It's a clique for posters who think alike.
I know why they do this.
It's personal.
Everywhere I can post, anyone else can.
But there are a great many places where I'm prohibited.
When I take over.....things will change....heads will roll....definitions will crumble!