Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Reelya]

Additionally, left-libertarians generally have other terms terms to describe themselves, such as anarchist.

Or liberal.

The problem with the term Liberal is that what it means depends on where you live, which doesn't make it the most useful terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In Europe and North America, there was also the rise of social liberalism, which is related with social democracy in Europe. As such, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." Consequently in America, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought.

In Australia, liberalism is primarily championed by the center-right Liberal Party. The Liberals in Australia support free markets and have both social conservative and social liberal factions.

While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an economic crisis in the 1970s inspired a temporary move away from Keynesian economics across many Western governments. This classical liberal renewal, known as neoliberalism, lasted through the 1980s and the 1990s, bringing about economic privatization of previously state-owned industries.

So, an American Liberal is a European Social Democrat, and an American Conservative (as Sheb said) is a European Liberal.

[Mrhappyface]

Hippies! I can practically smell that patchouli oil.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[LordSlowpoke]

I can practically smell that patchouli oil.

what do you mean they sell oils made out of 2hus

[Darvi]

Oh you.

[scriver]

So, an American Liberal is a European Social Democrat, and an American Conservative (as Sheb said) is a European Liberal.

I'm just happy I get to call everyone liberal pigs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well yes. European Conservatives don't really map to US politics at all, they can't be analogous.

[da_nang]

Spoiler: Feel the liberty! (click to show/hide)

[RedKing]

Worth remembering that the first wave of "liberals", circa late 1700's up to the 1848 "Liberal Revolution" were looking for freedomto make a buck, not necessarily equality and protection of minority rights. Democrats with a small D (and not necessarily considering women or savages to be capable of handling the power of the vote), and fervent fans of the "invisible hand of the market".

Socialism developed in part as a reaction to what they saw as the failed promise of liberalism, in the same way that more extreme ideologies in the Middle East are capitalizing on the perceived failure of the Arab Spring to deliver on its promise.


One interesting thing to note between the 19th century and today is that the majority of prominent liberals in the 19th century were humanists, Deists, etc. with a deep mistrust of organized religion because of its close relationship with the monarchies/aristocracies. Faith in the markets and in the learning of man was supposed to replace faith in God.

Now on the right (either the GOP or even more moderate forms like European conservative parties) you have this weird marriage of faith in the invisible hand of the market *and* faith in an invisible God (some have argued that "prosperity gospel" is the penultimate form of this -- essentially merging the two and implying that God manipulates market forces to the boon of his devoted followers).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There needs to be more "neutral" answers on that quiz. Too many things that I was ambivalent about.

EDIT: And just noticed I'm one of the more authoritarian folks that have answered so far. 

[FearfulJesuit]

I think it probably makes sense to think of "liberalism" as the ideology of the (not particularly religious) middle class. In the 19th century, that's the bourgeoisie, who own and manage factories and businesses. Come the 20s and beyond, it was most of society, so things like the welfare state and universal healthcare are adopted into the liberal fold. The stagnation on economic but progression on social issues since 1980 makes sense: the economy was still strong, so the middle class still had its position, even if the fringes were getting squeezed, but the Inevitable March of Progress string that binds liberalism together inspired movement on issues like gay rights. Post-2008, economic issues have started to become more important, because the downturn really squeezed the middle of society.

[mainiac]

Worth remembering that the first wave of "liberals", circa late 1700's up to the 1848 "Liberal Revolution" were looking for freedomto make a buck, not necessarily equality and protection of minority rights. Democrats with a small D (and not necessarily considering women or savages to be capable of handling the power of the vote), and fervent fans of the "invisible hand of the market".

I feel like this view is very prevalent but that is due to the backlash against the feel good rosy histories of a previous era.  Liberals of this era actually spoke a lot about the common good.  Madison for instance was very interested in the treatment of minorities when he was being the intellectual father of the revolution, a radically liberal political movement at the time.  Adam Smith spoke quite a bit about the need for state spending on public works and welfare projects like public schooling.

You just need to put the 19th century liberals in the proper context to see why people misunderstand them.  They were living in a world dominated by very inflexible and outdated economic models, built around huge military spending.  The poor of this era took care of themselves and the outside influences just hurt them.  For them the state did a lot to hurt their well being.  It supported structures like the landed gentry and guilds that had been obsolete for nearly 1000 years, taxed them and drafted them into armies that did the peasants no good because there weren't roving vikings anymore.  So when the liberal said to be more laissez-faire, they were talking about letting the state get the hell out of the way so farmers could farm, artisans could craft, merchants could trade and nobles would have to bargain for what they could instead of having the king enforce serfdom on their behalf and taking as much as the peasants could bear.

[scriver]

No. First business of 18th and 19th century liberalism: dissolve all safety and insurance systems poor folks had "enjoyed" in the previous ages.

[SealyStar]

My most "reliable", in my opinion, result on that test was -3, -3 or somewhere around there. It fluctuates every time I retry it - weirdly, it's been drifting toward the left and slightly to authoritarian recently. The authoritarian part isn't very large, nor is it surprising - I've admittedly lost some of my "bleeding heart" tendencies and become more skeptical. The leftward drift is a shock, because if anything I feel like I've drifted toward the center.

[mainiac]

No. First business of 18th and 19th century liberalism: dissolve all safety and insurance systems poor folks had "enjoyed" in the previous ages.

What insurance system did the farmers who were 90% of the population lose?

[lue]

Well, that's the second time I've introduced a poll to these forums that's been derided for its inaccuracies. Guess I won't be doing that again... *sniffle*
 

A internet poll does not a world standard make. Personally, I prefer that one poll that was like this in graph, but separated certain things into their own 1D graph, with a scale of where you were on the US culture war, and where you stand on military intervention.

Ooh, sounds interesting. Do you remember anything about it? It's name, or something?

In any case, I suddenly feel like maybe I could create a political test myself if I really wanted; seems the best way would be a "stack" of 1D graphs on various subject matter, because since first seeing that site, I've wondered if social/economic is a granular enough division of political feelings. Things like "US Culture War" obviously jumps into more regional questions, which a first version of the poll might not address.

I think it probably makes sense to think of "liberalism" as the ideology of the (not particularly religious) middle class. In the 19th century, that's the bourgeoisie, who own and manage factories and businesses. Come the 20s and beyond, it was most of society, so things like the welfare state and universal healthcare are adopted into the liberal fold. The stagnation on economic but progression on social issues since 1980 makes sense: the economy was still strong, so the middle class still had its position, even if the fringes were getting squeezed, but the Inevitable March of Progress string that binds liberalism together inspired movement on issues like gay rights. Post-2008, economic issues have started to become more important, because the downturn really squeezed the middle of society.

That's a good explanation for the divergence in the meaning of "liberalism", the rise of plutocracy in the '80s, and so on. I'll be sure to remember it .

[Sheb]

Same problem with anarchism: it's harder to attack the state when most of its business is paying grandma's pension and healthcare.