6 ms·

As someone from one of the many countries with a right/left/liberal split, I really don’t like that American politics conflates left and liberal together.

Bakary 4y ago
That's because the "actual" left was dormant or in small numbers until a decade ago
ceejayoz 4y ago
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I don't think this is why. Look at the number of Bernie supporters. I think what's really going on is that the right-wing media has a strategy of shifting the Overton window by calling liberals "left" and those same liberals have little problem with that because they consider themselves left, not knowing any better.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Look at the number of Bernie supporters. Mostly liberal, not leftist. (Even if they were, Bernie'd prove the point.)
  - mhneu 4y ago
    It's not just the word liberal, which means something different for most Americans than its meaning in other countries. In Australia, the Liberal party is the conservatives who are allied with Murdoch. The word "neoliberal" is also a problem. It is used negatively and aimed at a broad swath of center-left to center-right. But in other countries, the people called "neoliberals" would be understood to be conservatives. Instead of using "n*liberals", we should be calling them "conservatives". Larry Summers, for example, is a conservative.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - SamBam 4y ago
        This is a completely mistaken use of the word "neoliberal." Neoliberalism refers to a worldview that thinks in terms of market-oriented policies, global trade, privatization, etc. You thinking it has something to do with wokism or OK symbols is a perfect example of the word being used incorrectly.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        [flagged]
        Anthony-G 4y ago
        Correct. I don’t understand why you’re being down-voted for stating something that’s so incontrovertible. Neo-liberalism is an economic philosophy that aims to turn back the clock on Keynesian (or New Deal for the other side of the Atlantic) policies and return to “laissez-faire” capitalism of the 19th Century. It’s orthogonal to social liberalism (or “wokism”), i.e., one could be an advocate of privatisation of state services and just as easily be socially conservative or socially liberal.
      - rr888 4y ago
        I'm really not sure who you're talking about now. Sounds like Russian BS. Do you have a source for any of these three things? > were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis > Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        > were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture... > Today they argue that Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-turns-a-blind-eye-to-ultrarightist-militia/2017/02/12/dbf9ea3c-ecab-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-turns-a-... > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868328
- honkdaddy 4y ago
  I think the two party system is ultimately to blame for this, though I have no idea what the solution would be. Up in Canada, we have three left-leaning parties, NDP, Liberal, and Green, which represent some very different political views but all have varying levels of representation in our parliament. After living in the States a few years it's become clear that none of the 3rd parties are taken very seriously, and if you're not R you've gotta be D, and vice versa. For a country where I've met so many sharp and politically sophisticated folks, I think it's a bummer they have one binary choice when it comes to their national vote.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Within each party is where you find the subdivisions. Democrats have within them Socialists to classical liberals" and the Republicans have MAGA to traditional liberals. It's fluid though. It's within the primary elections where you see the most interesting elections at times. Sometimes you'll get a challenger in a district where it makes sense, like when AOC took on an established classical liberal and flipped it, pushing the representation leftward while still being Democrat.
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  > being pro-business and anti-regulation The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation. > The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism. Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism."
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      > Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism." Right and you'll find large populations of both Democrats and Republicans fall under the "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" banner with Democrats generally skewing one way a bit and Republicans the other. But ultimately, both sides headed the same direction just at different speeds and priority. I think the woke left and MAGA types have made more noise lately and it has disturbed some of the balance we've had the last 70 years where everyone is essentially onboard with the New Deal Regime.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > New Deal Regime Weird that the mainstream gets to claim this when they advocate against anything resembling any of it any opportunity they get.
crazygringo 4y ago
I'm very curious, but what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I've tried googling but can't find anything related to a right-left-liberal distinction. But in case it helps explain, at least in America, "liberal" has the basic connotation of "individual equality". Originally this meant equality before the law, often called "classical liberalism" which both left and right generally endorse. But then the left become associated with a greater expanded equality -- more social programs, safety nets, education, etc. The left therefore became associated with the term "liberal" while the right with "conservative" -- liberals interested in greater social equality, conservatives believing in more of a natural social hierarchy (still on top of legal equality). Then conservatives came up with the moderately-used term "neoliberal" to promote their market-based economic policies based on classical liberalism, in opposition to the left-wing expanded equality social policies. There's also the term "libertarian" which refers to classical liberalism without anything added -- no social equality of the left, and also no conservative cultural values of the right. But nevertheless, I'm extremely curious to know what you call liberal that is distinct from both right and left?
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Liberal as defined by a leftist tends to mean, in my experience, a deference to less regulated markets, and support for needs based social programs. Leftists (so called) economically challenge the idea that markets are inherently good, asserting that many industries should not be market based. Health insurance, prisons, schools, and so on. They tend to be more open to universal social programs which don't require stringent needs testing. Leftists tend to distinguish themselves from liberals more than distinguish liberals from conservatives in my experience. I would say liberals in America have much higher respect for marginalized groups, and they seem to have a desire to solve problems, as opposed to Republicans. edit at 1636 UTC: My above comment is quickly thought out and from mobile. I think "party alignment" would be somewhat more complex if our voting system allowed more than two parties to exist.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  > what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I quite like the definitions here[0] honestly, and to quote from that: > We believe markets are astonishingly good at creating wealth but less good at distributing that wealth. We support a market-based economy that promotes economic growth and nurtures innovation, while also supporting a safety net that shares the gains of that growth with everyone. In the UK, I would contrast that with a left who are skeptical of free markets, and a right who are skeptical that anyone who doesn't accumulate wealth under free markets should be entitled to any. Assuming you're American, and assuming my memory of their positions is correct, Elizabeth Warren is a liberal where Bernie is a leftist. [0] https://cnliberalism.org/overview https://cnliberalism.org/overview
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Ignorance is kind of our stock in trade, though.
lkrubner 4y ago
It's the result of the 2 party system. From 1860 to 1932 the liberals and the conservatives belonged to one political party, as is common elsewhere. After 1932, racial issues, and civil rights issues, brought the liberals together with the labor unions, and since then the "liberals" have been seen as belonging to the left. However, during the 1800s and early 1900s, the word "conservative" continued to hold its monarchist overtones, and therefore it was rejected by all American politicians, regardless of their party. The first presidential candidate to describe himself as a "conservative" was Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Bakary 4y ago

That's because the "actual" left was dormant or in small numbers until a decade ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

guerrilla 4y ago
I don't think this is why. Look at the number of Bernie supporters. I think what's really going on is that the right-wing media has a strategy of shifting the Overton window by calling liberals "left" and those same liberals have little problem with that because they consider themselves left, not knowing any better.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Look at the number of Bernie supporters. Mostly liberal, not leftist. (Even if they were, Bernie'd prove the point.)
- mhneu 4y ago
  It's not just the word liberal, which means something different for most Americans than its meaning in other countries. In Australia, the Liberal party is the conservatives who are allied with Murdoch. The word "neoliberal" is also a problem. It is used negatively and aimed at a broad swath of center-left to center-right. But in other countries, the people called "neoliberals" would be understood to be conservatives. Instead of using "n*liberals", we should be calling them "conservatives". Larry Summers, for example, is a conservative.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SamBam 4y ago
      This is a completely mistaken use of the word "neoliberal." Neoliberalism refers to a worldview that thinks in terms of market-oriented policies, global trade, privatization, etc. You thinking it has something to do with wokism or OK symbols is a perfect example of the word being used incorrectly.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - Anthony-G 4y ago
        Correct. I don’t understand why you’re being down-voted for stating something that’s so incontrovertible. Neo-liberalism is an economic philosophy that aims to turn back the clock on Keynesian (or New Deal for the other side of the Atlantic) policies and return to “laissez-faire” capitalism of the 19th Century. It’s orthogonal to social liberalism (or “wokism”), i.e., one could be an advocate of privatisation of state services and just as easily be socially conservative or socially liberal.
    - rr888 4y ago
      I'm really not sure who you're talking about now. Sounds like Russian BS. Do you have a source for any of these three things? > were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis > Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        > were pushing for the OK sign to be classified as a hate symbol used by secret Nazis https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture... > Today they argue that Ukraine having 20% of it's army wear literal swastikas https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-turns-a-blind-eye-to-ultrarightist-militia/2017/02/12/dbf9ea3c-ecab-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-turns-a-... > Today they argue that [Ukraine swastikas] isn't that bad. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32868328
honkdaddy 4y ago
I think the two party system is ultimately to blame for this, though I have no idea what the solution would be. Up in Canada, we have three left-leaning parties, NDP, Liberal, and Green, which represent some very different political views but all have varying levels of representation in our parliament. After living in the States a few years it's become clear that none of the 3rd parties are taken very seriously, and if you're not R you've gotta be D, and vice versa. For a country where I've met so many sharp and politically sophisticated folks, I think it's a bummer they have one binary choice when it comes to their national vote.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Within each party is where you find the subdivisions. Democrats have within them Socialists to classical liberals" and the Republicans have MAGA to traditional liberals. It's fluid though. It's within the primary elections where you see the most interesting elections at times. Sometimes you'll get a challenger in a district where it makes sense, like when AOC took on an established classical liberal and flipped it, pushing the representation leftward while still being Democrat.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation.

actionablefiber 4y ago
> being pro-business and anti-regulation The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation. > The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism. Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism."
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    > Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism." Right and you'll find large populations of both Democrats and Republicans fall under the "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" banner with Democrats generally skewing one way a bit and Republicans the other. But ultimately, both sides headed the same direction just at different speeds and priority. I think the woke left and MAGA types have made more noise lately and it has disturbed some of the balance we've had the last 70 years where everyone is essentially onboard with the New Deal Regime.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > New Deal Regime Weird that the mainstream gets to claim this when they advocate against anything resembling any of it any opportunity they get.

crazygringo 4y ago

I'm very curious, but what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I've tried googling but can't find anything related to a right-left-liberal distinction. But in case it helps explain, at least in America, "liberal" has the basic connotation of "individual equality". Originally this meant equality before the law, often called "classical liberalism" which both left and right generally endorse. But then the left become associated with a greater expanded equality -- more social programs, safety nets, education, etc. The left therefore became associated with the term "liberal" while the right with "conservative" -- liberals interested in greater social equality, conservatives believing in more of a natural social hierarchy (still on top of legal equality). Then conservatives came up with the moderately-used term "neoliberal" to promote their market-based economic policies based on classical liberalism, in opposition to the left-wing expanded equality social policies. There's also the term "libertarian" which refers to classical liberalism without anything added -- no social equality of the left, and also no conservative cultural values of the right. But nevertheless, I'm extremely curious to know what you call liberal that is distinct from both right and left?

unethical_ban 4y ago
Liberal as defined by a leftist tends to mean, in my experience, a deference to less regulated markets, and support for needs based social programs. Leftists (so called) economically challenge the idea that markets are inherently good, asserting that many industries should not be market based. Health insurance, prisons, schools, and so on. They tend to be more open to universal social programs which don't require stringent needs testing. Leftists tend to distinguish themselves from liberals more than distinguish liberals from conservatives in my experience. I would say liberals in America have much higher respect for marginalized groups, and they seem to have a desire to solve problems, as opposed to Republicans. edit at 1636 UTC: My above comment is quickly thought out and from mobile. I think "party alignment" would be somewhat more complex if our voting system allowed more than two parties to exist.
petesergeant 4y ago
> what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in? I quite like the definitions here[0] honestly, and to quote from that: > We believe markets are astonishingly good at creating wealth but less good at distributing that wealth. We support a market-based economy that promotes economic growth and nurtures innovation, while also supporting a safety net that shares the gains of that growth with everyone. In the UK, I would contrast that with a left who are skeptical of free markets, and a right who are skeptical that anyone who doesn't accumulate wealth under free markets should be entitled to any. Assuming you're American, and assuming my memory of their positions is correct, Elizabeth Warren is a liberal where Bernie is a leftist. [0] https://cnliberalism.org/overview https://cnliberalism.org/overview

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Ignorance is kind of our stock in trade, though.

lkrubner 4y ago

It's the result of the 2 party system. From 1860 to 1932 the liberals and the conservatives belonged to one political party, as is common elsewhere. After 1932, racial issues, and civil rights issues, brought the liberals together with the labor unions, and since then the "liberals" have been seen as belonging to the left. However, during the 1800s and early 1900s, the word "conservative" continued to hold its monarchist overtones, and therefore it was rejected by all American politicians, regardless of their party. The first presidential candidate to describe himself as a "conservative" was Barry Goldwater in 1964.