Why do liberals call themselves "Intellectual Liberals"?

Exactly! Looks like we haven't remembered or learned a thing. Your quote slams liberal intellectualism because we're repeating everything that took place in former Nazi Germany and USSR.

No offense to those that live in Germany and are German, and Russia and are Russian.

"You sunk" your own "battle ship!!!"

Yeah, here's to your liberal intellectualism.

END OF DEBATE!!!

 

Not in fascism. Fascism and liberalism are diametrically opposed. Look up the history of both:

See? Diametrically opposed. Both of those definitions taken from wikipedia.org where you'll find plenty of links to other sources of information as well.

No. The ideology behind liberalism is freedom. I can see where that might get confusing for some people and resemble relativism, because it allows people to do things that you don't agree with without punishing them for it. For example, as a liberal, I must allow and even support all speech, including that speech that I disagree with or find harmful.

As an aside: not if it's not breathing.

No. There has never been any time in America where there were not gay men or lesbian women, regardless of what other people thought of them. There were gay pilgrims and before that, gay natives. That some people might find that detestable is understandable given the cultural history, but it has never been detestable to all Americans. Americans have never been a very homogeneous group, even before they were called Americans.

Precisely!

Precisely wrong! Liberal thought has allowed this nation to achieve things that no other nation was ever able to achieve before. In the same way that our geographic diversity gives us a wide array of material resources to work with, our ethnic and cultural and linguistic diversity, and our diversity of paradigm, has given us the human resources to deal with problems that would have wiped out other nations. You wouldn't try to solve every construction task with just one kind of tool, would you? Think you can build a house with just a hammer or just a screwdriver? Well, neither can you build a nation with just white people or just heterosexuals.

There are also a lot more guns and a lot more people. I think that has more to do with it. But doesn't freedom of religion mean, in part, practically speaking, that you should be able to go to a public school without being indoctrinated, intimidated or excluded by someone else's religious practices? Yes, it does.

You can't ban God, as God is omnipresent (if you're a believer) or absent (if you're not) and thus either can't be kept out of any place because God was already there before it was even a place, or else can't be kept out because God doesn't exist and you can't ban something that doesn't exist -- and God seems to be rather heedless of human laws in any case.

Yes, freedoms, liberties and justices are under attack. Everyone's. Including the freedoms, liberties and justices of gay people, poor people, people who don't belong to the right church, people who don't belong to any church, or really just people in general who don't belong to whatever group thinks it should be in favor at the moment. And when anyone's freedom is threatened, everyone's freedom is threatened, and if oppression isn't fought then the results you describe -- tyranny, dictatorship, slavery and so on -- will occur.

Yeah, I don't get that. Let's not allow the powers that be to label or define homosexuals, minorities, the impoverished, or anybody else as criminal. Let's protect them, instead.

Congratulations, that's liberalism.

You are lost in the dark, and you are calling the light at the end of the tunnel, evil.

 

No, the ideology behing liberalism is FREEDOM, tolerance and equality of opportunity, based on the belief that ALL men (and women) are created equal, and should be free to live their lives however they choose, according to their own beliefs, insofar as it doesn't disturb the rights of others to live in freedom according to their own beliefs. Liberty and equality. 'Liberty and justice for all', if you prefer!

That includes FREEDOM to be Christain, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Rastafarian, Atheist, Agnostic, Gay, Bisexual, Straight, Male, Female, White, Black, etc., etc., and to live your life according to your own values and own free will, without having your freedom restricted by discrimination, and its associated restriction/removal of the equality of opportunity. Freedom to live how you choose to live, as long as the way you choose to live doesn't stop anyone else from living as they choose, or interfere with their own individual freedom.

Where that differs, of course, from the kind of 'freedom' that seems to be espoused by some 'Christian' Conservative right-wingers is that liberals don't accept that only those who are of one particular belief are allowed to be 'free' or have equality of opportunity, or that anyone has the right to force their beliefs on the rest of society to make them live their lives in the same way. That isn't 'freedom', that is oppression - 'you are free to live your life how you like, as long as you do it how I tell you', kind of thing. That is no freedom.

It is not 'Liberalism' that has 'destroyed' the USA (not that the USA has been 'destroyed', of course!). The principles of 'Liberalism created the USA. Read the Bill of Rights. Read the Declaration of Independance. These are LIBERAL documents, based on LIBERAL principles of FREEDOM and EQUALITY, and deliberately and expressely NOT based on any principles of religious oppression, or any notion that some people are created better than others, or have the right to dictate how others should live their lives because they are of the 'correct' religion or belief.

These are the principles of 'Liberalism', and these are the principles that formed the USA. That is historical fact.

Where does it say 'all men are created equal, as long as they are Christians' or that their 'unalienable Rights' of ' Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' depend on them being Christians, or on them deciding to live their lives in any particular 'approved' way? It doesn't. It even uses the phrase 'their Creator', not the phrase 'the Christian God', or 'the official, government endorsed God'.

The attempted claims that the religious right are somehow the champions of 'freedom' are an affront to truth, and an affront to the principles expressed in the great documents that founded the USA. It is this group that seeks to restrict freedom by attempting to apply it to only those who do as they are told by following their 'officially approved' path.

No 'liberal' will ever try to 'ban GOD, the Bible, Prayer, Christian Faith and Principles' from anybody's life - 'liberals' will always uphold the freedom of the individual to choose how to live their lives, and to choose what personal beliefs to hold. Some other groups, however, would like to ban anything that doesn't involve 'GOD, the Bible, Prayer, Christian Faith and Principles' - which group is the real enemy of FREEDOM? The answer is obvious.

Yes, 'Liberals' support tolerance, and are proud to do so. Without tolerance, there can be no freedom. Intolerance is the removal of the freedom of the individual, by definition. People cannot be free if they will not be tolerated because of their freely made choices. Tolerence is freedom, and freedom is tolerance - one cannot truly exist without the other. That is an essential principle of 'Liberalism'.

If liberals are ever likely to remove any kind of 'freedom', it is the 'freedom' of certain groups to dictate to the rest of society and remove the individual freedoms of other people or groups. The removal of the 'freedom' of a group to act oppressively and dictatorially within society. The removal of the 'freedom' to rob people of their right to choose how to live their lives. The removal of the 'freedom' of an oppressive group to destroy the 'freedom' of eveyone else. For the removal of that particular 'freedom', liberals will never, ever make any apology.

 

Mussolini coined the term "Fascism", Mussolini was a lifelong socialist and the son of a devout socialist. Fascism is a leftist ideology.

Modern liberals co-opted the term "liberal" to describe themselves after the term "progressive" became unpopular after the FDR regime. Today the Founders are commonly referred to as "Classical Liberals" so as not to get them confused with modern liberals.

Modern liberals wish to regulate every aspect of human existence, that's not freedom.

 

The difference can be found in Republicans as well.
For example, Palin: Republican
Ron Paul: Intellectual Republican.
The difference is one is smart the other is not. Although, yes, in this example above, Palin is a complete idiot, not just a Republican.

 

That's a complete nonsequitor. By your logic, since Stalin was the son of devout Christians and was intended to by a priest, Stalinism is a Christian ideology. In both cases the assertions are wrong. Nazism is totalitarian - virtually an entirely different section of politics altogether since it bears left and right wing (although more right wing) concepts.

So you're asserting every liberal was a progressive at the time of FDR?

The thing is though, they weren't. The Founding Fathers were simply liberals. Classical liberals were a couple of generations later, although became most pronounced in the US in the late 19th century. They first emerged in England in the first half of the century.

wtf. No they dont, they want to regulate social actions they believe inhibit the individual - in principle its no different to conservatives. There is far more continuity than disunity between conservative and liberal policies.

 

Mussolini was at odds with the socialist party in Italy so he formed his own party... the Fascists. Also the Nazis were the German National Socialist Party, socialism is a left wing ideology. Fascism stems from socialism as does communism, all are totalitarian.

There were no liberals, as defined by modern standards, during FDR's regime, they were called progressives. When the "progressive" moniker became unfashionable (because progressives really screwed the pooch) they began calling themselves liberals, to align themselves with the US founders, which is rather absurd. Before the progressives took over the Democratic party, Democrats were largely conservative. Grover Cleveland was a Democrat and would be considered a radical right winger by today's standards.

True, but in order to avoid confusion, the US founders are commonly referred to as classical liberals now.

Liberal policies made my toilet and shower head illegal, how's that for regulating every aspect of human existence.
I agree there is continuity between modern liberals and modern conservatives, or neoconservatives. That's because they're both statists.

 

and this means what to you exactly? Looks to me like it supports my statement that there are about as many registered Democrats as there are Republicans.

 

Yes, so? Like I said, Stalin went from being a trainee for a Christian church to a nut case. Both this and your assertion are nonsequitor arguments.

So you are saiyng if a group puts socialism in its party name (some thing Hitler later REGRETTED) that makes it socialist?

How? Explain this to me in ideological theory.

What modern standard is that?

And yet the progressive party only existed for a few years. The progressives actually had some very good policies and thinkers.

When did that happen?

And the founder of much if the progressive movement was a Republican, so I dont see how your earlier assertion makes sense.

That is stupid, plus I haven't heard anyone outside of you say that. It causes MORE confusion to say they were classical liberals, since these thinkers originated in England, whilst thinkers in America were still quite hostile to fundamental capitalist ideology, such as free markets. Liberal is the best word - broad, and thus accurate.

How so? Not efficient?

Not a very good example. In Australia the government had everyone's light bulbs replaced, and let me tell you it was actually quite good.

You will find around 80% of US politicians are statists.

 

Christianity is neither a political or economic philosophy, you're comparing apples to oranges. Mussolini was a lifelong socialist, a zebra can't change it's stripes.

Hitler was also a part of the socialist movement in Austria.

Socialism is the state owning the means of production outright, fascism is the state owning the means of production through regulation. Mussolini just adapted the ideology to fit his requirements.

Liberals wish to regulate every aspect of human existence.

Progressives existed since the late 19th century, and still do. Their ideas stemmed from Otto von Bismarck's top down socialist policies. Bismarck's policies failed, as do all socialist policies.
Eugenics, was a great policy, Hitler actually got the idea from US progressives.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1796.html

It didn't happen all at once, it started in the 1930's and it's an ongoing process.

Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and began government intervention in the private sector. The republicans then rejected him so he started the Bull Moose Party, which failed. His nephew was much more successful at establishing fascist policies in the US.

It may be the best word, and the most accurate, but modern liberals have little in common with the US founders.

Too efficient, I can get a healthy turd down with only one flush, the newer toilets need several.

Freedom is about choice, if there is no choice then there is tyranny.

Likely more than that.

 

It means that your post reflected a reality that no longer applies post Tea Party. Conservative/Liberal is the identification that matters, as my original post noted. The political term 'liberal' is odious to most folk.

 

Not at all. You are using a complete nonsequitor. You have not explained how fascism is socialist. Because a so-called socialist created it, doesn't make it socialist. Indeed why would he, being a socialist, as you claim, entirely alter the ideology to be completely contrary to its purpose? Furthermore, why did virtually every Italian moderate, socialist and communist oppose him?

Not at all. And even if he were it would not show in anyway how fascism was socialist.

LOL Yes and he similarly kileld socialists and communists. Later he regretted having has 'socialist' in the name of his party.

WRONG. Socialism is workers owning the means of production.

Indeed - it is statist. However it doesn't nationalize most industries, instead it promoted corporatist enterprise, and unlike socialist, seeks to maintain classes, along with private enterprise. Similarly, as it totally opposes the socialist view of worker centrality and instead advocates state centrality, it is overtly nationalist and militant, unlike socialism which can be pacifist and is almost always internationalist in orientation.

No, he created an entirely new ideology. Granted he used some socialist concepts, but that IN NO WAY makes fascism socialist.

WRONG. "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I know you probably tell yourself this about liberalism to make voting for the same clowns easier, but it isnt true.

Yes- as a minority.

Really?

LOL Bismark didnt employ socialism at all. He made slight concessions to middle class groups seeking better social conditions.

LOL Really? You know Winston Churchill beleived in eugenics. Are you saying he's progressive as well? This in itself again does not validate your argument. Please stil with your logical fallacies. Guilt by association does not cut it.

Your link said absolutely nothing about progressives, let alone politicians. All it discussed was the American scientific and intellectual origins of Nazi eugenics policies.

Please provide some evidence. You have yet to do so for any of your claims.

LOL Fascist. Well yes they were borderline fascist, but they weren't. I thought you were referring specifically to wartime Roosevelt, who was a social liberal, not a progressive.

True. That being said, almost no modern politicians have anything to do ideologically with the founding fathers.

Where I come from that isnt efficient. But again doesnt prove your point.

Correct. I have choice in my country and liberals in the US aren't really depriving you of your own.

Probably.

 

Let me guess, you got your education in history from a state school?

 

Did you know ad hominems demonstrate an extreme lack of skill in debate?

 

I'm a liberal and I think I know what I believe better than you do.

 

Are you involved in politics? If not then maybe you're just being led along by the nose by people that are using you.

 

I don't follow anyone, so that would be difficult. I suppose you could say we're all being led by nose, by people that are using us, and that would be true. You could also say that we're all leading each other by the nose and using each other, and that would also be true. But what is most true, at least in a political context, is that we are all leading ourselves, and using ourselves, because the truth is that we were all born possessing inalienable freedom, inalienable dignity and merit as human beings, and inalienable worth as individuals that can never be bartered, compromised, degraded, tarnished or brokered. That is the essence of liberalism. It is economic, social, spiritual, political, philosophical and practically inevitable.

But lest anyone accuse me arrogant intellectualism, I will share my all-time favorite quote, and it's not from a well-regarded source at all (at least not in most serious circles):

"And on my soul, I swear ... until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice becomes the reality we all share ... I'll never stop fighting. Ever."

Liberalism is not what you've been told. Chances are, you're a liberal and you just don't know it.

 

I'm a libertarian, and to be more specific, an anarcho-capitalist.

I agree with your statement that we're all being used, that's for sure. I also admire your belief in individual freedom... maybe you're a libertarian and don't know it.

 

Man alive!...that is so true...

What I used to see were two "basic" types of people.

Ones who are more likely to embrace tradition, and are more likely to resist change....{conservative}

...and ones who are more likely to embrace change, and are more likely to resist tradition....{liberal}

Using these basics...consider the 1850's...most Republicans were liberals when it came to slavery, but were conservative in terms of preserving the union.

I tried to apply this formula to many things, and soon figured out that in 2011...there are many instances where Republicans resist tradition and Democrats resisted change...almost right down the middle????

Could it be that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are just tags used by political strategists to identify and demonize the other guy?

I think so...because the only constant I could identify in the criteria people used to decide if they were going to resist or embrace tradition or change...was the almighty buck.

People are willing to be conservative when they profit from being a conservative, and people are willing to be liberal when they profit from being a liberal, but, since politicans need us to form groups...we have these arbitrary terms that people apply to themselves and others.

Americans need to see things as black and white...

So the righty/GOP advocacy media of today will identify EVERYTHING that Republicans do as a conservative thing...and furthermore all conservative things are good.

And the lefty/DNC advocacy media of today will identify EVERYTHING that Democrats do as........wait.......maybe the mainstream media doesn't quite label everything that Democrats do as a liberal thing....wait!....maybe the mainstream media isn't as bad as Rupert Murdoch's conservative news empire...or maybe the mainstream media isn't as competent in it's branding of "liberal"

Forgive my free association....hmmm..

 

What are you talking about?

For the USSR, we're in wars now yes, but we haven't gotten the numerous revolts that occured prior.

For Germany, Inflanation in the US is at 4%, Germany had it much worse. Also our econonomy isn't as bad as Germanys. The only comparsion I can think of, is that the Tea party is here, and the Nazi party was also there.

 

Libertarianism is itself an 'extreme' form of 'neo-classical' liberalism. It grew from the ideas and ideals of liberalism. Liberalism is a very broad definition, and different brands of liberalism have different emphases (in ideas about what 'social justice' entails in particular), but all (including Libertarianism) are based around the essential core belief in individual freedom for everyone, not domination by the 'state'.

Understanding that the origins of 'Libertarianism' lie in 'Liberalism' will help give a greater understanding of the fundemental differences between 'Liberalism' and 'Socialism' as political ideologies. Broadly speaking (although there are obviously different emphases within 'socialism' too), 'Socialism' is based fundementally in the idea that people should be 'equalised', and that should be achieved by 'society' and the 'state', under collective (effectively 'state') owning and running of the economy - it does not have 'freedom of the individual' as one of its central, core beliefs, but emphasises that equalisation as being all-important (and far more important than freedom from state interference in life and economy).

While we may have a different emphsis on particular social and economic issues, in many ways 'Liberals' and 'Libertarians' are, by instinct, quite natural political allies. We both believe in individual freedoms, and in a free economic system, we just disagree slightly on exactly what they mean and how they can be best achieved. We both believe generally in a 'small' state, operating under the full control of the people and only in the interests of the people, but just disagree about exactly what the minimum level is of that small state is. 'Liberals' tend to place a greater emphasis on ensuring equality of opportunity, and a legal framework to ensure that social and economic issues and freedoms do not become corrupted by intolerance, corporatism and so on, where 'Libertarians' tend to believe that total de-regulation is the best way to achieve such freedoms. Slightly different opinions about exactly where we should be going there, and how we should get there, but really not far removed at all from each other as ideologies when you strip them back to the basics - for both of us, it's all about protecting and enhancing personal freedoms for the individual.

Both 'liberals' and 'libertarians' would naturally reject the 'state control' ideas of 'socialism', and also the social conformation ideas of conservatism (and religious conservatism in particular), in favour of individual freedoms for all.

The incorrect assumption that 'socialsim' and 'liberalism' are somehow linked, or two sides of the same coin, is enhanced by the old 'right/left' descriptions, which are not a very useful guide to the nature of ideologies at all! If any modern political ideologies could be said to be closely linked 'sides of the same coin', and natural, instinctive allies in many fundemental areas, it should really be 'Liberalism' and 'Libertarianism'. The fact that they aren't considered so by many is probably more down to misunderstanding of the terms and beliefs involved (both by political opponents and by some who identify themselves using ideological terms that don't seem to fit entirely with the kind of opinions they express!) than actual fundemental disagrement!

 

To comment specifically on that issue as an example, we both essentially believe in free trade and free markets based on private property and enterprise, rather than economy based on direct 'state' control or 'state' domination. We are both 'capitalists'. The basic difference is that you presumably see that free market operating as an entirely 'self-regulating' entity as being the ideal for a system with maximum 'freedom', whereas I would see it as a better way to maximise that 'freedom' to have a basic framework of regulatory ground rules to ensure that the market remains freely competative and can't be manipulated by 'corporatism' or private monopoly (to ensure 'freedom' through 'equality of opportunity', free from manipulation or control either by 'state' or any other large organsiation). Slightly different, but essentially different ways of trying to achieve the same sort of thing in principle - a free capitalist economy, based on free trade, free markets and free exercise of private enterprise opportunities.

Both ideologies are quite similar in basic outlook, and a very long way removed from the kind of direct state control, interference and manipulation advocated by the advocates of 'anti-capitalism' or 'socialism'.

 

Nice post, and I agree with your point of view. In the US "liberalism" has come to be defined as a statist position. It stands for wealth redistribution and social welfare programs, basically socialism. I had a discussion earlier today about the definitions of liberal and classical liberal, in reference to the US founders. I stated that the US founders were commonly referred to as classical liberals so as not to be confused with modern US liberals, he didn't understand. He was from Australia and likely didn't understand the US definition of a modern liberal, I may need to apologize.

 

That's a gross oversimplification, not to mention, a bad GOP talking point.

 

Wow, you've mischaracterized liberalism and socialism all in one talking point.

I like the 'statist position' terminology, as if a democratic form of government is somehow an imposition on our freedoms.

I detect libertarianism and its weirdness in the background.