Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[Fuzzness 2]

I never thought liberals supported big business. i thought that was a conservative thing. oh well, i never called myself liberal anyway

[sparkofcreation 0]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

My husband points out that:

1. The definition quoted above is the definition of libertarianism (or very close to it, anyway), not liberalism.

2. A study back before the 2004 election showed that 50% of people who vote Republican believe that the Republican Party's platform is the exact opposite of what it is. For example, they believed that Republicans wanted to keep the estate tax and Democrats wanted to abolish it.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

So you're a Socialist? I don't mean that to be offensive (and I don't know if you would find it so), but it sounds like your objection to liberals is that they're not liberal enough (that is, that they are too far to the right on the issues, even the ones that they are more liberal than the right on). So presumably your viewpoints lie to the left of the left wing. But the fact that you're more liberal than most liberals doesn't mean you're anti-liberalism, it means you're anti-people-who-claim-to-be-liberals-but-aren't.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it seems a little silly to say "my objection to liberalisms is that liberals are pro-business and anti-environment and social programs" when what you mean "my objection to people who claim to be liberals is that they are not liberals but instead act more like conservatives by being pro-business and anti-environment and social programs."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

My husband points out that:

1. The definition quoted above is the definition of libertarianism (or very close to it, anyway), not liberalism.

2. A study back before the 2004 election showed that 50% of people who vote Republican believe that the Republican Party's platform is the exact opposite of what it is. For example, they believed that Republicans wanted to keep the estate tax and Democrats wanted to abolish it.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

So you're a Socialist? I don't mean that to be offensive (and I don't know if you would find it so), but it sounds like your objection to liberals is that they're not liberal enough (that is, that they are too far to the right on the issues, even the ones that they are more liberal than the right on). So presumably your viewpoints lie to the left of the left wing. But the fact that you're more liberal than most liberals doesn't mean you're anti-liberalism, it means you're anti-people-who-claim-to-be-liberals-but-aren't.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it seems a little silly to say "my objection to liberalisms is that liberals are pro-business and anti-environment and social programs" when what you mean "my objection to people who claim to be liberals is that they are not liberals but instead act more like conservatives by being pro-business and anti-environment and social programs."

The problem is that the current definitions of liberalism and conservatism are simplistic and amount to self indoctrination.

Economic Liberals who are pro-big business ARE liberal not conservative, and their "big business" views are completely in line with that philosophy of liberalism. The common misconception is in not separating political philosophy from party politics. Hence people assume incorrectly that free market economics and favouring big business (as opposed to the individual) are somehow characteristic of conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatism would be the opposite of economic liberalism. Decide for yourself how that applies to current policymaking.

Edited September 25, 2006 by erekose

[kirk and Jenny 0]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

My husband points out that:

1. The definition quoted above is the definition of libertarianism (or very close to it, anyway), not liberalism.

2. A study back before the 2004 election showed that 50% of people who vote Republican believe that the Republican Party's platform is the exact opposite of what it is. For example, they believed that Republicans wanted to keep the estate tax and Democrats wanted to abolish it.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

So you're a Socialist? I don't mean that to be offensive (and I don't know if you would find it so), but it sounds like your objection to liberals is that they're not liberal enough (that is, that they are too far to the right on the issues, even the ones that they are more liberal than the right on). So presumably your viewpoints lie to the left of the left wing. But the fact that you're more liberal than most liberals doesn't mean you're anti-liberalism, it means you're anti-people-who-claim-to-be-liberals-but-aren't.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it seems a little silly to say "my objection to liberalisms is that liberals are pro-business and anti-environment and social programs" when what you mean "my objection to people who claim to be liberals is that they are not liberals but instead act more like conservatives by being pro-business and anti-environment and social programs."

The problem is that the current definitions of liberalism and conservatism are simplistic and amount to self indoctrination.

Economic Liberals who are pro-big business ARE liberal not conservative, and their "big business" views are completely in line with that philosophy of liberalism. The common misconception is in not separating political philosophy from party politics. Hence people assume incorrectly that free market economics and favouring big business (as opposed to the individual) are somehow characteristic of conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatism would be the opposite of economic liberalism. Decide for yourself how that applies to current policymaking.

agreed, the world has certainly changed. Where do liberals make money, in investment accounts that depend on stocks doing good, in some cases, I would argue an apposite to social justice, in others, I would argue the opposite.

[homesick_american 1]

Oh, believe me...once they issue my husband's visa, we're a dot on the horizon. Want to come to my UK visa-burning party?

If I was to classify myself I would say I'm a old school anarchist-socialist-green leaning-fool.

Dime a dozen over here.

Hey Homesick I'd love to celebrate your visa burning really I would. I believe borders between nations should be removed, maybe then we'll understand each other better. (Do not call me a hippy I hate Hippies).

and this made me smile... - from another topic -

Both my husband and I are:

* atheists

* mindful of the environment

* supportive of public education

* supportive of public transport

* in favor of renationalizing the UK's train system

* against the Iraq war

* against owning firearms

* against animal cruelty

* in favor of sustainable, ethical farming

Is that you Homesick??

This really sounds like an Anarchist - Socialistic - Green leaning fool to me. You just need to add Improve the NHS and we could start a new political party??

Good Luck to you and your hubby and Viva le Revolution.

Sorry, I'm not an anarchist...and I think socialism sucks. Thanks for the good wishes though.

[clloyd 0]

Liberal being used as a negative word is nothing new.

Consider this John F. Kennedy speech from 1960.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35..._nyliberal.html

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

So you're a Socialist? I don't mean that to be offensive (and I don't know if you would find it so), but it sounds like your objection to liberals is that they're not liberal enough (that is, that they are too far to the right on the issues, even the ones that they are more liberal than the right on). So presumably your viewpoints lie to the left of the left wing. But the fact that you're more liberal than most liberals doesn't mean you're anti-liberalism, it means you're anti-people-who-claim-to-be-liberals-but-aren't.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it seems a little silly to say "my objection to liberalisms is that liberals are pro-business and anti-environment and social programs" when what you mean "my objection to people who claim to be liberals is that they are not liberals but instead act more like conservatives by being pro-business and anti-environment and social programs."

I'm not a socialist but I don't consider socialism a bad thing but rather as another misunderstood political ideology. I definitely have socialist leanings and you're right in your assumption that I'm on the left wing of the political spectrum.

As to your claim that I'm talking about conservatives when accusing liberals of being pro-business, I disagree. Show me a single liberal who classifies him- or herself as a liberal who truly opposes big business and works for the common man. Liberals profess to be for social and environmental programs but when it comes down to it they are as concerned about common people as their presumed opponents. While you think that my concept of liberal is off-key, I think your concept of conservatism is off-key. True conservatives are neither interested in economic globalism because it endangers the nation nor are they into corporations taking over the world because that would go against their basic belief in conserving the past. Not sure if this makes much sense. But anyone subscribing to the basic economic policies laid out by Smith (laissez-faire capitalism and the like) is a liberal for me.

[almaty 19]

HAVE YOU HUGGED A LIBERAL TODAY?

[cmartyn 0]

Gufffaawww...

Yaknow, Conservatives are the ones who should be pro-environment. There are no Liberal / Conservative people any more.

We have lefty nutjobs, righty wingnuts and then something inbetween which I call Moderate Republicans who are the people you hear denegrated as Liberals because they arent too keen on teaching that Man was created out of thin air on the first day of spring. Being a Republican is ok.. you can admit it to yourself. I have.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I don't hate any political ideaology as much as I hate the childish bickering and name-calling that passes as debate in this country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't hate any political ideaology as much as I hate the childish bickering and name-calling that passes as debate in this country.

Hence I find it difficult to find anything particularly sympathetic in the mainstream parties. Its all a big mish-mash of B/S.

[Fandango 1,439]

If you don't like Europe LEAVE

Remember you said that when someone refuses you the right to criticise America by saying the same to you

[Peter Miami 0]

HAVE YOU HUGGED A LIBERAL TODAY?

No, not yet.

[godsavethequeen 0]

If you don't like Europe LEAVE

Remember you said that when someone refuses you the right to criticise America by saying the same to you

She was one of those people. but my comment was meant as a joke. Thats why I stuck the laughing head there!

Homesick can stay in the UK and criticise the UK, if she wants, for as long as she wants, we Brits just don't care. But she wants to leave the UK for some strange reason. ........I'm leaving too