DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The use of the word 'Liberal'
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/19/2004 01:43:54 AM · #1
OK, this is totally not photography related. However, there seems to be a lot of political discussion on this site, and I've been reading some of it (most I've been able to do lately at this site). I've been most troubled with the use of the word 'liberal' and the implications of bashing said term. Why? Because your country and its constitution were formed around the liberal democratic ideals of its forefathers. In other words, you're all liberals.

A liberal, in the ideological sense of the word, is someone who ultimately values the individual's right to freedom. On the political spectrum it's right in the middle, neither left nor right. On either side of this are the extremes of socialism (Communism) and conservatism (Fascism). Both extremes involve heavy state involvement and embrace ideals of utilitarianism, among other things, where the individual suffers for the sake of the greater good.

The distinction we make in our varying political positions within this liberal democratic framework is in how we ensure this notion of individual freedom. A Republican would contest that an individual who is empowered within this liberal democracy is able to maximise his/her potential without given 'positive rights' like access to food, shelter, medical services etc. Essentially, markets will determine success. A Democrat would argue that an individual is unable to maximise his/her potential without these positive rights being upheld. That's the only difference.

The main frustration I and a lot of other people have with Bush and his administration is the apparent move from liberal democracy to ultra conservatism. In this sense, as Margaret Atwood pointed out recently, they're 'gutting the constitution'. Rather than valuing individual rights, things such as the Patriot Act and the countless personal freedoms lost to the 'war on terror' are evidence that the individual is no longer as important as it once was.

However you look at the reasons behind the actions of the current US administration, the movement towards state control over individual rights is, in and of itself, severely problematic to anyone who values those rights and freedoms set out by the Constitution.

Message edited by author 2004-10-19 01:45:30.
 10/19/2004 02:01:45 AM · #2
Jimmy, I agree with you but would like to add that today those individual's rights have been transferred on to the corporations. They are now the constituent citizens because they contribute large sums of money to both parties and to individual politicians. Both the democrats and republicans cozy up to those big business and special interest groups that wave the largest sums of money. Secondary are the people that make up the US. This is what's being pushed for in globalization where nation states take secondary roles to trade pact organizations and the contracts being forged by them and those contries that sign on. Before 9/11 Bush was facing increasing resistance to furthering those trade pacts, as witnessed in the WTO demonstrations in Seattle and the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Then 9/11 came and it seems to have changed all that.
 10/19/2004 02:11:03 AM · #3
That just confirms what I'm talking about. Rights of the individual degraded for the sake of the state. One can easily argue that corporations are inseparable from government, and it's held that this 'corporate fascism' has existed in the US since the 30s. Any mechanism that degrades the rights of the individual, for whatever reason, falls outside the liberal democratic ideal and is potentially unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Jimmy, I agree with you but would like to add that today those individual's rights have been transferred on to the corporations. They are now the constituent citizens because they contribute large sums of money to both parties and to individual politicians. Both the democrats and republicans cozy up to those big business and special interest groups that wave the largest sums of money. Secondary are the people that make up the US. This is what's being pushed for in globalization where nation states take secondary roles to trade pact organizations and the contracts being forged by them and those contries that sign on. Before 9/11 Bush was facing increasing resistance to furthering those trade pacts, as witnessed in the WTO demonstrations in Seattle and the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Then 9/11 came and it seems to have changed all that.


Message edited by author 2004-10-19 02:15:58.
 10/19/2004 03:45:56 AM · #4
For starters, our country is not a "liberal democracy" but a representative republic.

Also, you're taking a narrow variant of the word liberal and trying to assume its use across a broad spectrum of meanings and concepts. Perhaps a look at dictionary.com might give you a quick overview of many diffent definitions of liberal, both with and without political connotations. One interesting definition, which is probably the antithesis of what most of us (at least here in America) consider liberals: 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.

Then, try taking some time at the wikipedia liberal page to get a broader understanding of what the term liberal can relate to within the political spectrum. Of particular note to those of us discussing American politics is this comment: "In the United States, liberal is sometimes used as an antonym for Conservative or a synonym for left-wing. There, it primarily refers to the New Deal variant of liberalism, emphasizing the positive role of the state."

So, while your attempt at "can't we all just get along" political correctness may be well intentioned, it's at best completely irrelevant to what (as I understand you) you're attempting to address. At worst, it's a poor attempt at populist rhetoric designed to insite revolt against the evil conspiracies of conservatives and corporations. Sounds like the kind of pap heard in the poli-sci classes of liberal arts colleges around the country, and appearantly, outside the country as well.

Here's a more interesting question I'd like answered: Since liberal is such a nice, populist, universal label that we should all embrace, why is it that so many liberals (at least here in the US) are so afraid of that label. You call someone a liberal and suddenly your "calling names" and "pinning labels". Why is that? (Too bad I can't get John Kerry to answer that - he's the one most furiously ducking it lately.)
 10/19/2004 04:12:38 AM · #5
Originally posted by ScottK:
Here's a more interesting question I'd like answered: Since liberal is such a nice, populist, universal label that we should all embrace, why is it that so many liberals (at least here in the US) are so afraid of that label. You call someone a liberal and suddenly your "calling names" and "pinning labels". Why is that? (Too bad I can't get John Kerry to answer that - he's the one most furiously ducking it lately.)


1. I embrace the label Liberal -- I am a Liberal! I am also a Democrat. I am also someone that's worn our nation's uniform. In every day life I describe my politics, social views and core values as liberal.

2. Unfortunately the word Liberal has come to be a political liability in many sectors of our country, and you very well know this -- no need to play coy. Therefore, no intelligent national politician is going to embrace a label that's perceived as a liability in some states of our nation -- remember, a president is supposed to represent the entire country, and not cherry pick which states to represent.

3. It's a bit disingenuous of you to single out one politician, knowing full well how the political game works in our country. For example, when was the last time that our esteemed governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican), identified himself as a conservative in a statewide address? Living in California we know full well that a statewide office holder would not get elected if he were to label himself as a conservative (worst yet, a "social" conservative).
 10/19/2004 04:12:56 AM · #6
Thank you for that, JimmyTheFish. Curious how a Canadian has a subtler -- gasp, do I dare!? --, more nuanced understanding of the American political framework. As an aside, I've used the word "nuanced" a bit tongue-in-chick here; because -- in the current American political environment -- "nuanced" is one of those words that's well on its way to becoming a dirty word (much like "liberal" -- in the pedestrian sense -- has become a dirty epithet invoked by the Right/Republicans). For our international friends, I, regrettably, must offer the following as a description of the current American political landscape:

1. As JimmyTheFish suggests (and I would agree), most Americans don't have an understanding of our own history and of political ideological terms like Liberal and Conservative in the academic/secular sense.

2. Americans are largely apolitical and, for various reasons, have in recent decades come to belive that the institutional political process is ineffective, unresponsive and inaccessible. Of course, this political apathy has been cultivated by both parties at various times, and for various reasons. However, a cursory glance at recent history would strongly suggest that this ploy has been more effectively used by the Right. Moreover, the point here is that because this apathy is true of a substantial segment of the American public, most of us have come to belive that change is not affected through political institutions nor through collective organization (i.e., marches, public rallies and the occasional civil disobedience).

3. In America, the cult of the individual has been deified to such a degree that the value of collective action is completely ignored. Here's what I mean, in America it would seem that every notable human accomplishment somehow miraculously sprung from the mind of ONE individual at a given point, and that that individual alone changed the course of things. This, of course, completely ignores the contributions that countless other people make so that that ONE person could accomplish whatever it is that she's credited with.

4. Taken together: (1) A good portion of Americans tend to be ill-informed on political (not to mention historical and international) matters; (2) Americans have little faith that the political/electoral process is the best way to resolve the nation's problems to begin with and, too, we lack the social capital (i.e., grassroots community foundations) to organize and effectively engage political institutions; and, finally, (3) since the cult of the individual is inculcated at a young age, we don't naturally gravitate towards organized groups as a way to solve problems.

Now, I belive that the above condition has created a vacuum wherein a good segment of the American electorate, lacking a firm grounding on historical and secular Conservatism, have imbued one party (i.e., Republican) as the vessel for ALL the social and religious conservative values that they would like to see enforced/adopted in the country at large. What does this mean in practical terms? Well, because in America we have only two viable parties (Democratic and Republican), most people that align themselves with one party or the other have little alternative but to vote for that party or not vote at all. Therefore, since the Republican party has been largely co-opted by a strong and vocal social/religious segment of that party, traditional conservatives (i.e., conservatives in the secular, academic, budgetary and state vs. the individual sense) have been largely marginalized within the Republican party. (As an aside, this is the reason why many "traditional" or true conservatives in the Republican party are predicting a "civil war" within the party after the November elections. Also, this is the reason why some "traditional" or true conservatives have endorsed Mr. Kerry over the Republican candidate, Mr. Bush.) Accordingly, in America, labels like Liberal and Conservative, in the pedestrian sense, have come to signify one's "social" and religious values, rather than what the two labels are generally understood to mean in the academic/Political Science field.

Moreover, as JimmyTheFish alludes to, the Bush administration is not conservative, in the "traditional" or true sense of the term, by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, the Bush administration borders on imperial as it has subverted the Constitution and federal law in pursuit of polices that compromise individual rights, and by holding itself above public accounting for its execution of the Iraq war.

Message edited by author 2004-10-19 11:48:59.
 10/19/2004 05:37:20 AM · #7
consevatives are hardly conservative

also there will be a public accounting for the carrying out of the iraq war in two weeks.

Message edited by author 2004-10-19 05:44:26.
 10/19/2004 08:45:56 AM · #8
I guess I don't understand when massive deficit spending and warmongering became core conservative values. Fiscally I'd even consider myself a conservative and certainly would be better off under the proposals of Bush than Kerry, but Bush doesn't strike me as anything like what was previously considered conservative.

This is probably because he is only really pandering to the social conservative, but again here, I don't understand how a rush to war becomes a Christian value. Though this is no doubt just a European thing.
 10/19/2004 10:04:31 AM · #9
To aggree (I think I am) with Gordon, President Bush is not a real conservative, and as to a move to ultra conservatism? I'm thinking not. There has been a big shift to the left in our country, when comparing it to OUR countries history.

President Bush is more like JFK than John Kerry pretends to be. If I was an adult in the middle or early side of this past century, then I'm pretty sure I would have been a democrat, the party how ever does not stand for what I believe in anymore and has future goals for this country that I dissagree with. Even though I have equal goals with the (D)'s on the eviroment, abortion and a few others, there are key points that I think are way more important that are actualy controlled by the government and sitting president that I aggree with on the side of republicans.

Some truths:
Bush is not a Christian zealot, if you think he is, then you need to learn what the word means and then read some history and find out what a real religious zealot is...

Bush is not ultra-conservtive, he in fact is pretty liberal. Now this is personal opinion, but if he had the big D next to his name, people who call him an animal now would be applauding him, just with a party change, and yes I actualy believe that.

Bush is not a war monger and it angers me that so many people are blinded by party affiliation that they can't see this. I would have supported any president, R or D, who did what Bush did. If you read all the facts and not just the ones that support your side, President Bush stopped another KIM Chong-il from happening and we've uncovered HUGE crimes commited by the UN and member nations...

I wish more people were mad at countries like France, Germany, Russia & I think Libya? Here are countries that were against stopping Saddam CLEARLY for economical gain, and almost no one is willing to hold them acountable. Maybe if they had supported us and actualy followed through like they should have, a war never would have been required (at least not on the scale performed).

I'm thiking this is kind of a pointless conversation... I'm just gonna try and fade out of this conversation...
 10/19/2004 10:06:09 AM · #10
Perhaps read my post again, and make a distinction between ideological and political. This is key. Political definitions plunge into your 'rhetoric' but ideological ones certainly don't. You are a representative republic, yes, which was founded on the principles of liberal democracy. If you read the Constitution you'd realise that those guys wrote the thing to, amongst other things, protect you from your government. Is that what it does now? No.

I'm not taking a 'can't we all get along' attitude. What I'm saying is that your country's administration is no longer holding up the principles of the Constitution. You're hung up on a definition, but the use of 'liberal' by most of you is inconsequential. Bush's bashing of the word may be more than that, for his admnistration is in many ways stepping out of this liberal democratic framework that is so ingrained into the American tradition that many (yourself included) are unaware that you're even in one.

In that way, and to answer your last question, it may be that the ultra-conservative (read: fascist) tendencies of your current administration have tied the word 'liberal' to being against the war in Iraq, and thus 'un-American'. This is a similar strategy used by Hitler after WWI to come to power and to eventually mess up an entire continent for centuries.

Again, my point: While your country once held the rights of the individual up above all else, IT IS NO LONGER DOING SO. Is this more or less important than being able to use the word to spread hatred of your more socialist peers? Hmm?

Originally posted by ScottK:
For starters, our country is not a "liberal democracy" but a representative republic.

Also, you're taking a narrow variant of the word liberal and trying to assume its use across a broad spectrum of meanings and concepts. Perhaps a look at dictionary.com might give you a quick overview of many diffent definitions of liberal, both with and without political connotations. One interesting definition, which is probably the antithesis of what most of us (at least here in America) consider liberals: 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.

Then, try taking some time at the wikipedia liberal page to get a broader understanding of what the term liberal can relate to within the political spectrum. Of particular note to those of us discussing American politics is this comment: "In the United States, liberal is sometimes used as an antonym for Conservative or a synonym for left-wing. There, it primarily refers to the New Deal variant of liberalism, emphasizing the positive role of the state."

So, while your attempt at "can't we all just get along" political correctness may be well intentioned, it's at best completely irrelevant to what (as I understand you) you're attempting to address. At worst, it's a poor attempt at populist rhetoric designed to insite revolt against the evil conspiracies of conservatives and corporations. Sounds like the kind of pap heard in the poli-sci classes of liberal arts colleges around the country, and appearantly, outside the country as well.

Here's a more interesting question I'd like answered: Since liberal is such a nice, populist, universal label that we should all embrace, why is it that so many liberals (at least here in the US) are so afraid of that label. You call someone a liberal and suddenly your "calling names" and "pinning labels". Why is that? (Too bad I can't get John Kerry to answer that - he's the one most furiously ducking it lately.)


Message edited by author 2004-10-19 11:48:36.
 10/19/2004 11:11:10 AM · #11
This is nuts !

Folks,please do something about it on Nov. second !
 10/19/2004 11:22:41 AM · #12
Originally posted by pitsaman:
This is nuts !

Folks,please do something about it on Nov. second !


Well, based on Gallup polls, somewhere around 65% of American's literally believe that the flood happened and that evolution is incorrect, so that's a big market to sell books to or pander to for votes. Evolutionists are in the minority in the US.
 10/19/2004 11:23:04 AM · #13
Originally posted by pitsaman:
This is nuts !

Folks,please do something about it on Nov. second !


Hate to ask this, but are you saying this book should be banned? Or maybe burned? :)
 10/19/2004 12:41:51 PM · #14
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
This is nuts !

Folks,please do something about it on Nov. second !


Well, based on Gallup polls, somewhere around 65% of American's literally believe that the flood happened and that evolution is incorrect, so that's a big market to sell books to or pander to for votes. Evolutionists are in the minority in the US.


Well, there are floods every now and then. Some of 'em must have been great ones, exceeding the size and impact of your run-of-the-mill Tsunami, which supposedly occurs every two to three hundred years. Myths and legend, too, relate such event(s). The Haida nation (of Haida Gwai/The Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada) substantiates the year of the last one as coinciding with one which is a matter of historical record in Japan.

In my view, floods don't negate evolution - or evolution the flood.

Message edited by author 2004-10-19 12:42:47.
 10/19/2004 04:00:31 PM · #15
Originally posted by ScottK:
At worst, it's a poor attempt at populist rhetoric designed to insite revolt against the evil conspiracies of conservatives and corporations.


If you are able; you would rethink that comment after watching or reading The Corporation. You would also gain perspective if you read The Ecology of Commerce, and of course one of my favorite books on the subject The Prize.

"I had a revelation about what industry is doing to our planet. I stood convicted as a plunderer of the earth...In the future, people like me will go to jail."
- Ray Anderson, CEO Interface, world̢۪s largest commercial carpet manufacturer.
 10/19/2004 09:40:40 PM · #16
New York Times editorial:

October 18, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court
By ADAM COHEN

bortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.

It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

For years, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been lobbing their judicial Molotov cocktails from the sidelines, while the court proceeded on its moderate-conservative path. But given the ages and inclinations of the current justices, it is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is re-elected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land.

There is every reason to believe Roe v. Wade would quickly be overturned. Mr. Bush ducked a question about his views on Roe in the third debate. But he sent his base a coded message in the second debate, with an odd reference to the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott, an 1857 decision upholding slavery, is rarely mentioned today, except in right-wing legal circles, where it is often likened to Roe. (Anti-abortion theorists say that the court refused to see blacks as human in Dred Scott and that the same thing happened to fetuses in Roe.) For more than a decade, Justices Scalia and Thomas have urged their colleagues to reverse Roe and "get out of this area, where we have no right to be."

If Roe is lost, the Center for Reproductive Rights warns, there's a good chance that 30 states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions within a year; some states may take only weeks. Criminalization will sweep well beyond the Bible Belt: Ohio could be among the first to drive young women to back-alley abortions and prosecute doctors.

If Justices Scalia and Thomas become the Constitution's final arbiters, the rights of racial minorities, gay people and the poor will be rolled back considerably. Both men dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

They were just as indifferent to the plight of "M.L.B.," a poor mother of two from Mississippi. When her parental rights were terminated, she wanted to appeal, but Mississippi would not let her because she could not afford a court fee of $2,352.36. The Supreme Court held that she had a constitutional right to appeal. But Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that if M.L.B. didn't have the money, her children would have to be put up for adoption.

That sort of cruelty is a theme running through many Scalia-Thomas opinions. A Louisiana inmate sued after he was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. The court ruled that the beating, which left the inmate with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate, violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But Justices Scalia and Thomas insisted that the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the "insignificant" harm the inmate suffered.

This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.

A Scalia-Thomas court would dismantle the wall between church and state. Justice Thomas gave an indication of just how much in his opinion in a case upholding Ohio's school voucher program. He suggested, despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, that the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states. If it doesn't, the states could adopt particular religions, and use tax money to proselytize for them. Justices Scalia and Thomas have also argued against basic rights of criminal suspects, like the Miranda warning about the right to remain silent.

President Bush claims to want judges who will apply law, not make it. But Justices Scalia and Thomas are judicial activists, eager to use the fast-expanding federalism doctrine to strike down laws that protect people's rights. Last year, they dissented from a decision upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one. They said Congress did not have that power. They have expressed a desire to strike down air pollution and campaign finance laws for similar reasons.

Neither President Bush nor John Kerry has said much about Supreme Court nominations, wary of any issue whose impact on undecided voters cannot be readily predicted. But voters have to think about the Supreme Court. If President Bush gets the chance to name three young justices who share the views of Justices Scalia and Thomas, it could fundamentally change America for decades.

10/19/2004 09:57:37 PM · #17
bortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear

If you actually believe that, you are just plain hoodwinked, because it will never happen. None of it.

Message edited by author 2004-10-19 21:59:21.
 10/19/2004 11:29:26 PM · #18
Originally posted by Riggs:
bortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear

If you actually believe that, you are just plain hoodwinked, because it will never happen. None of it.


I disagree with you and think those things can happen here, but you may not know about them. There's already a lot of secrecy in the Bush administration, but they want to push through Patriot Act II, which if passed, will be even more draconian that the first one and will be permanent without any "sunset" provision. This country will then look more and more like Soviet Russia. Also, don't forget that over the past 3+ years the Bush administration have been detaining people with no connections to terrorism and not charging them with any crimes. Those at Guantanamo Bay are tortured on a daily basis.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 10:33:43 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 10:33:43 AM EDT.