Why is being called a Liberal an insult?

[OccamsRazor]

Certain people on these forums use the term Liberal as if it were a weapon. I have been told that I am a Leftie or a Liberal and by implication I should be insulted by such a label.

Here is a quick definition

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

I would feel complemented to be labelled such.
In fact some years ago my wife called me "liberal to the core", she meant it as a complement and I was proud to be described in this way.

Which leads me to my question. Why is being called a liberal used as an insult and would people would use it in this fashion be insulted if they were described using the definition above?

[kctheshootinfool]

First, let me point out what I should have done with the original post. While I am not a liberal, I am also not a right-wing conservative. I am most definitely a moderate, or more accurately a libertarian, as I strongly agree with a blend of both political philosophies. I reject the partisan system we have, and the all-or-none nature of the 2 dominant political parties.


In this bullet list, I was attempting to answer Nirvana's request for an antagonistic view of liberals (the perception of the right-wing conservative), and I see I have succeeded.

I like Micatela's 'spin' on these -- they are very good, and in my opinion very accurate.

Let me offer a rephrasing of each of these six items just as an example of how it is easy to put 'spin' on political labels.

1. Liberals care about seeing that all people are treated humanely and with respect. They are especially concerned about mistreatment of subgroups that have suffered a history of abuse, and work to see that these historical abuses are remedied.
2. Liberals look at the world holistically, and put more value on seeing the world as a whole operating as a civilized and constructive society, than in promoting parochial, sectarian, or nationalistic interests.
3. Liberals see government as a potential solution to certain problems. They do not value capitalism for capitalism's sake, but view the higher good of humanity as more important than capitalistic principles.
4. Liberals encourage those who have more to shoulder a larger share of the responsibility for caring for the poor. Liberals acknowledge that people may be poor despite their hard work and best efforts at attaining a sustainable economic situation.
5. Liberals acknowledge that not everyone agrees about the nature of God or even the existence of God, that different religions can have value even if they disagree with each other, and that we should respect each person's right to practice or not practice religion as they see fit.
6. Liberals do not value militarism as an end in itself. Liberals acknowledge that war is a last resort, and usually represents a failure to solve problems by other means. Liberals are not necessarily pacifists, but they do understand that war and the preparation for possible war through massive arms programs have serious deleterious effects that are often discounted by those who promote war and militarism.

[kctheshootinfool]

First, let me point out what I should have with the original post. While I am not a liberal, I am also not a right-wing conservative. I am most definitely a moderate, or more accurately a libertarian, as I strongly agree with a blend of both political philosophies. I reject the all-or-none nature of the current party system, and dont affiliate myself with either of the 2 dominant parties.

No, in this bullet list, I was addressing Nirvana's request for an antagonistic view of liberals (the perception of the right-wing conservative), and it appears I have succeeded, at least in getting the discussion rolling.

Kctheshootinfools ideas sound just like the ranting of Pat Robertson.Of course 1John had to bring in some kind of homosexual slam defining all liberals as satanic.

I have no respect for Pat Robertson, Falwell or the like, but these stereotypical anti-liberal comments do resemble something they would say.

I like Micatela's notion of the power of 'spin'. These are good, but they are just as broad as the more cynical generalizations I presented. With that said, here are my LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE takes on each. (Now you can criticize me, as these are actually MY opinions).

1. Liberals care about seeing that all people are treated humanely and with respect. They are especially concerned about mistreatment of subgroups that have suffered a history of abuse, and work to see that these historical abuses are remedied.

LIBERAL:
Excellent point, and at heart I cannot disagree with most issues. No moderately compassionate human being would. Everyone is valuable, and no man/woman is more important than another.

CONSERVATIVE:
But let's remember the democratic concept of 1 man, 1 vote. Using the homosexual marriage example, most of the remaining states adopted a ban on gay marriage amendment to their state constitutions immediately following the supreme court's decision to not overturn Massachusett's law allowing gay marriage. You may see this as the abuse of a subgroup, but perhaps its not. This is not the forum to debate homosexuality, the point is that this is not a matter of religious, racial, ethnic, or gender inequality -- it's a defense of natural humanity.

2. Liberals look at the world holistically, and put more value on seeing the world as a whole operating as a civilized and constructive society, than in promoting parochial, sectarian, or nationalistic interests.

LIBERAL:
Cant agree more with most environmental concerns, such as pollution, deforestation and unnatural extinction of animals, overutilization of natural resources, etc.

CONSERVATIVE:
What about significant human health gains? I dont need a mink coat either, I dont hunt for sport (or food), and since we are omnivores, I can even agree that we as humans can live off plant life rather than meat, but you'd be hard pressed to find a 'liberal' who'd turn down a life saving medication in the ER because the pharmaceutical company killed a few thousand rats (or even monkeys) during its development.

3. Liberals see government as a potential solution to certain problems. They do not value capitalism for capitalism's sake, but view the higher good of humanity as more important than capitalistic principles.

LIBERAL:
The greater good of taking care of all humanity cannot be understated. I think a national healthcare system, and putting a lot more time AND money into the development of QUALITY public school systems (including higher education) stands to benefit everyone.

CONSERVATIVE:
When do you draw the line? At what point is the government controlling too much of your financial and social well-being, and deciding for you how to best spend YOUR money. At what point can or should a free society pull back and take some control for themselves again?

4. Liberals encourage those who have more to shoulder a larger share of the responsibility for caring for the poor. Liberals acknowledge that people may be poor despite their hard work and best efforts at attaining a sustainable economic situation.

LIBERAL:
In an ideal world, once again, everyone would benefit from socialism. If not financially, in other ways, such as the benefit of living with lower crime rates and less homelessness. We can use les disparity in life

CONSERVATIVE:
The financial burden as well as the benefits need to be distributed proportionately. If the wealthy and 'middle class' subsidize the poor with disproportionately high taxation, and end up with little ability to improve their own financial status or standard of living, where is the incentive to become educated, work hard, be productive, innovative, and excel?
Also, let's not act naive about the fact that our society has MANY people who CAN work, but choose not to be responsible citizens because they've been conditioned to living on government programs and are content to continue doing so. Why should we support an unwed mother on welfare who continues to have children she cant support on her own? Agreed, these people unfairly give the deserving people a bad name, but that's the way it is. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

5. Liberals acknowledge that not everyone agrees about the nature of God or even the existence of God, that different religions can have value even if they disagree with each other, and that we should respect each person's right to practice or not practice religion as they see fit.

LIBERAL:
How can you look at this any other way. Excellent point. It's all part of our 1st amendment rights as American citizens. Let's live in harmony among each other, and not care what religious affiliation your neighbors have. I'm all for it.

CONSERVATIVE:
If this were really the case, the double standard against the dominant religions (mainly Christianity) -- which actually infringe upon the rights of these religious members -- wouldnt exist. Why can't a Christian wear a Christian shirt in a public school? Let the muslim wear an Islamic shirt, and an atheist wear a "there is no God" shirt. If anyone complains, tell them to take a walk. THAT's America. Like it or not, most of the authors of the declaration and Constitution believed in God, and the foundation for our free society was based on Judeo-Christian principles. Motivated by their believe in God (a choice they freely possessed), they wrote the Constitution allowing people of all religions (or NO religion) to worship (or NOT worship) as they desired. There is no need to criticize any one religion or censor it the way our society has.

6. Liberals do not value militarism as an end in itself. Liberals acknowledge that war is a last resort, and usually represents a failure to solve problems by other means. Liberals are not necessarily pacifists, but they do understand that war and the preparation for possible war through massive arms programs have serious deleterious effects that are often discounted by those who promote war and militarism.

LIBERAL:
Again, how can anyone argue with this logic? War should ALWAYS be a last resort.

CONSERVATIVE:
These wars may not have been in our immediate defense, but should we have never helped the S Koreans, the S Vietnamese, the Kuwaitis? We joined WWII because of Japan, but should we have never assisted in bringing down the 3rd Reich? I agree Iraq got way out of hand, and may not have even been necessary to complete our long-term goals, but the 'war on terror' IS for our immediate defense. We were attacked right here at home. Do we just abandon all hope of keeping radical Islam from killing more of us in our backyards?

[OccamsRazor]

I think that the points drawn up here are rather Socialism versus Capitalism. I also think that you have hit the point that many people believe Liberalism is synonymous with extreme Socialism.


The examples here suggest that the Liberal view is an extreme socialist one and that the Conservative view is a pragmatic one. I do not agree with this.

I think that bernee51 put it best with this statement:

Liberalism holds that public authorities must submit to the consent of those over whom they aspire to rule, thereby undermining the legitimacy of all forms of absolutism.

This states that the pragmatic position is a more Liberal one. I would say that Conservativism shifts more toward Capitalism.

[micatala]

Nice post, kc. I think you do a nice job of identifying legitimate aspects of each viewpoint. If this was the tenor of the liberal conservative discussion, we would see a lot less insults all around.

A few specific comments:

But let's remember the democratic concept of 1 man, 1 vote. Using the homosexual marriage example, most of the remaining states adopted a ban on gay marriage amendment to their state constitutions immediately following the supreme court's decision to not overturn Massachusett's law allowing gay marriage. You may see this as the abuse of a subgroup, but perhaps its not. This is not the forum to debate homosexuality, the point is that this is not a matter of religious, racial, ethnic, or gender inequality -- it's a defense of natural humanity.

I agree, 1 man 1 vote is an important concept. As you say, the trick is to decide which items should not be up for a vote, and when voting becomes merely a mechanism to enact the 'tyranny of the majority.'

I understand the viewpoint that being against gay marriage is simply trying to defend 'natural humanity' although I don't really agree with the arguments. I can also understand the feeling that gay marriage represents a very major challenge to tradition, and would agree we should not take such a step lightly. What I don't understand is how many opponents of gay marriage can not see that their is a very legitimate civil rights issue here, that the gay marriage movement is simply about trying to procure equal rights under the 'life, liberty, and happiness' idea of the constitution. It is not, as many claim, about promoting immorality.

What about significant human health gains? I dont need a mink coat either, I dont hunt for sport (or food), and since we are omnivores, I can even agree that we as humans can live off plant life rather than meat, but you'd be hard pressed to find a 'liberal' who'd turn down a life saving medication in the ER because the pharmaceutical company killed a few thousand rats (or even monkeys) during its development.

A good point. Just as Christians can legitimately be criticized for being hypocritical in some ways, so can liberals. I think it is fair to say that some liberals want 'everybody else' to make the sacrifices for the greater good, without being willing to put their money where their mouth is.

This is an exceedingly difficult thing to do in many ways. We are not islands unto ourselves, and it is quite hard to divorce oneself from the society in which one lives, which makes us all in some sense inherently complicit in the shortcomings of our society.

When do you draw the line? At what point is the government controlling too much of your financial and social well-being, and deciding for you how to best spend YOUR money. At what point can or should a free society pull back and take some control for themselves again?

Again, a very good point and a difficult question. In most cases, it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. Here is a place where a 'liberal tyranny of the majority' could place inappropriate and even draconian expectations on the wealthy, and possibly to the detriment of all. Certainly many conservatives have made this case.

If this were really the case, the double standard against the dominant religions (mainly Christianity) -- which actually infringe upon the rights of these religious members -- wouldnt exist. Why can't a Christian wear a Christian shirt in a public school? Let the muslim wear an Islamic shirt, and an atheist wear a "there is no God" shirt. If anyone complains, tell them to take a walk. THAT's America.

I absolutely agree. We often do get too uptight about being nonoffensive. Again, this is another area where it is difficult to know exactly where the balance point lies, but at this point I think we have probably swung too far one way.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What many people do not realize is that liberal and conservative agendas are not stagnant; they are terms relative to a certain political era.

For example, if the US suddenly transformed into a pseudo-socialistic welfare state, I would be considered a conservative, and those wishing to progress (so to speak) towards a de-centralized government would be the liberals.

When the term liberal first arose in 17th/18th century, it described one inclined towards an an unlimited laissez-faire economy. Now that most foriegn policies have changed, so have the term's connotations.

[MagusYanam]

When the term liberal first arose in 17th/18th century, it described one inclined towards an an unlimited laissez-faire economy. Now that most foriegn policies have changed, so have the term's connotations.

Good point. 'Liberalism' during the early 19th century was equated with economic deregulation, emphasis on furthering the ends of the professionals and businessmen, devolving power away from the nobility and nationalism. I find it rather amusing, actually, that by 19th-century standards I would be considered a right-winger.

Personally, given the figure of Jesus Christ which we are meant to emulate, I cannot understand how one can be a Christian and not a social liberal (by today's definition). Jesus was not concerned with the affairs of one nation, but rather with the entire world, he was a pacifist by his actions and he was foremostly concerned with social justice (for the poor, the meek and the sick). The entire ethic of 'getting ahead' above any other responsibilities (as propounded by today's pro-business conservatives) is utterly foreign to me, and I cannot see it as compatible with Christianity. Likewise, the ultra-nationalist idealism of the neocons (whom the history majors like to call Wilsonian liberals gone evil) makes just as little sense to me. So when I see self-proclaimed Christians supporting the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party (on the issues of gay marriage and evolution which strike me as petty in comparison), I admit to bewilderment and distrust of the deepest kind. That's just where this liberal is coming from.

Also, let's not act naive about the fact that our society has MANY people who CAN work, but choose not to be responsible citizens because they've been conditioned to living on government programs and are content to continue doing so. Why should we support an unwed mother on welfare who continues to have children she cant support on her own? Agreed, these people unfairly give the deserving people a bad name, but that's the way it is. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Okay, but allow me to address this not as a social liberal but as a fiscal conservative (yes, as otseng demonstrated earlier, I am allowed to be both). Suppose that 15% of all welfare recipients are complete and utter cheats who can't be persuaded to work at all. For one thing, you can't allow those 15% to poison the well on the other 85%. The way the system works now, we spend a great deal of money and resources making sure the people don't cheat. What the real fiscal conservative would do is compare the bottom line: if it takes more money and effort to ferret out the cheats than just to let them cheat, let them cheat. You do your duty to the honest people and your duty stops there. On the other hand, if the cheats are taking more money from you than even your investigation consumes, then you have a problem that's worth looking at.

LIBERAL:
Again, how can anyone argue with this logic? War should ALWAYS be a last resort.

CONSERVATIVE:
These wars may not have been in our immediate defense, but should we have never helped the S Koreans, the S Vietnamese, the Kuwaitis? We joined WWII because of Japan, but should we have never assisted in bringing down the 3rd Reich? I agree Iraq got way out of hand, and may not have even been necessary to complete our long-term goals, but the 'war on terror' IS for our immediate defense. We were attacked right here at home. Do we just abandon all hope of keeping radical Islam from killing more of us in our backyards?

Okay, drastic oversimplification at work here. Allow me to demonstrate the logic behind the pacifist-realist position.

Firstly, the principle of sufficient reason: war, like everything else in the universe, is dependent upon a cause - in this case, resources, ideological conflict or social injustice. Since ideological disputes and obtaining resources and social justice may be done through peaceful avenues like diplomacy or non-violent direct action, it is reasonable to assume that these avenues are preferable to violent conflict, given the ends of both. Perhaps this is a good rule of thumb: if you have to use force to achieve your ends, you have automatically failed. The way we look at wars now is flawed: we say a side can 'win' a war. Which side 'won' World War I? The Allies? We suffered a huge economic slump as a result of that little misadventure, and Western Europe suffered under the shadows Hitler and Stalin because of it for the next half-century. Is that a victory?

Of course, some wars can be justified. When the Southern states seceded or when Hitler rose to power, armed conflict became inevitable. But it was still indicative of diplomatic failure and failure to deliver social and economic justice to those who needed it most (the slaves in one case, the Rhinelanders in the other).

So what is the responsible thing to do? Be active in peacetime as much as in war - in the war on terror, work to alleviate the problems in the Middle East so Middle Easterners won't be so resentful of us. Strike at the head of the serpent instead of at the tail, which is what we have been doing (and failing to do) in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Work for social justice at home, if nothing else. Preventing further attacks is only the first step.

[1John2_26]

Though I am not a consevative, if I were called a liberal, I would be deeply troubled in my heart and my soul. A Christian cannot be a modern-day liberal.

I would recoil if a person thought I cared only enough about the poor to keep them on welfare and allow them built in excuses for their lack of willingness to become better parts of society. The welfare family goes from generation to generation.

Why do liberals fight against tough "mandatory" penalties for "convicted" child rapists? Bill O'Reilly may be a self-promoting showman but are his reported facts wrong?

Why would I want to support what is now the most dangerous part of our cities to stay dangerous? I of course do not suffer one bit living far away in my rural town, but I pay for the violence to be promoted by "being a liberal."

Rather than to hold out role models that are not sexually promiscuous and are in fact chaste and moral, I would not feel good about being called a liberal that believes: "Oh well, kids will screw, we better give 'em condoms and not try to stop 'em." I would not sleep well being "that kind of person."

If I were called a liberal, I would feel I was being saddled with the murder of tens of millions of unborn children without one word to try to stop the horror inflicted on the most innocent humans in our chain of life.

If I were called a liberal I would be depressed as liberals know that genocide is being carried out on a second by second basis and yet will not fight the murderers. They think talking to sociopathic killers and working out diplomiatic deals will make things right.

Children need mothers and fathers as that is natural and normal human developement of the rational mind. Liberals promote non-married living as OK and promote same-sex marriage knowing the facts of human developement is from mother-father and always will be. Yet, liberals look the other way when any conflict arises to upset their daily peace.

I equate modern- liberalism with cowardice and apathy; cloaked in boisterous activism to hide selfish greed of personal comfort while ignoring the suffering of others.

I view the ignoring of the suffering of people dying as a liberal ideology and personal belief system masked by arguing to the contrary yet, displaying the fact of actual apathy by actions. What liberal political organization is willing to fight against the Sudanese genocidal armies slaughtering innocent people in numbers you cannot count?

Sanctions cannot save a family from the pitiless men that come and shoot them to death.

Liberal is an insult to me because it appears that liberals seek their own peace and comfort and care nothing for others by their actions. Socialism does nothing to motivate caring for others, as effort and personal endeavors is eliminated. Do most Europeans care about Israel or Taiwan? Only if it affects the flow of flavored coffees.

It as if love, duty and honor to others means nothing to a liberal. Just self.

In fact; liberals want to take money from other more motivated people to assure and secure a tiny Starbucks neighborhood outlet will continue. Where, "civl and free debates continue while the liberals that debate there, ignore people suffering in reality far away from plush metropolitan cafes and a lifestyle secured and procured for the benefit of the lucky ones perpetuating their own comfort zones by liberalism.

Liberal is an insult to me; established by the actions of the majority of those now "identifying" with the modern paradigm. How many liberals marching in anti-war protests would be willing to go to Sudan and protest against war for real?

Are not Islamic children blown up and killed by "other" Muslim's worth the time of Cindy Sheehan? Why are not her and her protesters in Iraq protesting Sunni's, Al Queda, and other "warring" factions?

Why aren't the liberals marching in protest against Lebanon?

[OccamsRazor]

1John, I cannot help but think you have confused your political ideologies, you imply that the Starbucks culture is created by Socialism when this is in fact the product of Capitalism.

Socialism does nothing to motivate caring for others, as effort and personal endeavors is eliminated.

This is utterly nonsensical. The point of socialism is that wealth and resources are distributed. In the USA 1% of the population owns 38% of the wealth. You simply cannot say that this system of government favours the less fortunate.

You mention places like Israel and Sudan. You seem to think that liberalism does not care about other nations due to the nature of its protests. I ask you then, what is the answer to the Israel-Palestine situation or the Sudan-Chad conflict?

I feel the the problem with a large amount of (predominantly US I feel) Conservative opinion is the belief that western democracies should send troops out with a "Police the World" mentality.

Please note 1John that saying that war is a last resort does not say that war should never be entered.

It as if love, duty and honor to others means nothing to a liberal. Just self.

This is utterly ridiculous. 1John, I give you Mahatma Gandhi.

[micatala]

A Christian cannot be a modern-day liberal.

THis is simply an utterly false. I don't know whether anyone would describe me as a liberal or not, and I avoid labeling myself whenever possible, but this assertion is ridiculous.

In order to be a Christian, one merely needs to define oneself as a follower of Christ. One might, for example, follow what is written in Romans and 'confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord.'

Being Christian is in no way inconsistent with:

1. Showing compassion to all people, including the poor, sick, in prison, shunned, and other members of society considered lowly. Jesus specifically did this and enjoins us as CHristians to do the same.

2. There is nothing in Christianity that says we should prefer one form of government over another. Democracy or socialism, it makes no difference.

3. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that I have seen that says we should impose any particular form of penalty on law-breakers. In fact, one could imply from Jesus' concern for people in prison that he wants us to have compassion on them, regardless of their offences. The conservative 'law and order view' is much more out of step with Christ's teachings than the liberals, especially when it is born out of fear, which Christ enjoins us to avoid.

4. Liberals believe in personal responsibility. It seems Jesus does also. He allows each of us to answer to Him for our actions. Contrary to the ridiculous assertion that 'liberals are saddled with the murder of millions', it is the people who committed these acts that are responsible for them, whether they be murder or jay-walking.


Most of your diatribe against liberals misses the mark because your description of liberals bears only a slight resemblance to reality. You consistently pick out the most extreme views of a few, and portray them as central beliefs of all those who would describe themselves as liberals.

[Cathar1950]

I was watching a bit of Jerry Falwell the other night and he was calling Howard A. Snyder and Sojourners Magazine "Liberal Christian" because the are into social justice. This kind of reminds me of 1john.
I personally think it is the only thing Christian have correct from the Hebrew writings. It is like calling Mennonites liberals.
Falwell is such a *$#%.