Liberal:
'nuff said.
Posted on 09/14/2003 5:46:30 AM PDT by golfGodd
What does it mean to be liberal or conservative in politics today?
ART COULSON Editorial Page Editor
Liberal. Conservative. The terms are tossed about like grenades in the current war for the soul of American politics.
We in the newspaper business — particularly those of us who speak as the institutional voices of our newspapers on the editorial pages — are often labeled with these words by our readers.
Some on the right call us liberals. Their neighbors on the left believe us to be conservative.
But what do these terms really mean?
Is Republican California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger a conservative? He supports a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Isn't that a liberal opinion?
And what of the Democrats in Congress who supported the pre-emptive war in Iraq?
Are they conservatives?
Just as two members of the same religion may hold very strong but opposite personal beliefs about certain tenets of their faith, so, too, may two conservatives or two liberals hold opposing views on hot-button issues.
Over the next several months I will be trying to measure the balance of views expressed on our op-ed page and in our letters to the editor column. My goal is not to have the pages become mushy and bland, but is, ultimately, to ensure that our pages are balanced and reflective of the broad range of strong opinions in our community and our nation.
But to do that, I need your help in arriving at a consensus definition of our terms: What does it mean to be "liberal" in today's political arena? And what do we mean when we use the word "conservative"? Are these terms even applicable? Illuminating? Accurate?
If you have thoughts on this, please take a moment and drop me a note or an e-mail at the addresses at the end of my column. I will share some of the responses in an upcoming column.
And I will share with you what I find out about the balance of opinions in our letters, essays and syndicated columns.
To salt the mines, I have asked several respected political scientists to give me their perspectives on these terms.
Here is a sampling of their thoughtful responses:
Christian Grose, professor of government at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis., and a specialist in American politics, elections and Congress — "Ideology in the contemporary U.S. can be summed up as two large dimensions or scales: an economic left-right scale and a social left-right scale. Thus, you should also consider the bias on these two issue areas. … On economic issues, 'liberal' in contemporary terms is anything involving more government regulation of the economy while 'conservative' is less regulation of the economy. On social issues, however, the regulation tends to reverse (though not always): Contemporary 'liberals' favor less government intervention in the social realm while 'conservatives' are for government intervention socially."
Iva Deutchman, professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y. — "The terms have REALLY changed over time in the U.S. Today, the U.S. is about the only country in the world where the term liberal means 'progressive.' In England, Australia, etc. the Liberal Party is indeed the conservative party. When Milton Friedman calls himself a liberal, my students often get confused, but he's right. … To be Liberal really means to support a limited government and to believe in individual rights. Around the time of FDR, things began to change and today the term liberal now is associated with more progressive beliefs (i.e., government intervention) and conservatives are now associated with more limited government (although many conservatives want a government which limits its economic intervention but not its social intervention so they would be happy with laws outlawing abortion, for example.)
Jeffrey P. Krans, professor of Political Science and Economics, Keuka College in Keuka Park, N.Y. — "Liberals are concerned first with justice and equity issues, secondarily with order and security issues. Conservatives prioritize order and security issues as most important, justice and equity as of lesser importance. …
"Liberals believe in open and democratic debate, and measures to assure government accountability. Conservatives will sacrifice openness in the interest of security, and they see added measures to hold public officials accountable as motivated by those whose nationalism and loyalty are suspect. Policy example: Liberals oppose the reach of the Homeland Security Department and the extensiveness of the Patriot Act. Conservatives see both as necessary to our survival.
"Liberals will place economic equity and fairness ahead of economic profits and efficiency. Conservatives would believe profit and efficiency are pre-requisite to achieving any sort of level of economic growth which ultimately benefits all society's participants.''
***
So, what do you think? Drop me a line.
acoulson@pioneerpress.com
Liberal: I love me.
If "liberals" believed in open and democratic debate, then Roe. V. Wade would be over turned and the American people allowed to debate and vote on it...somewhat like the people of Tx. who supported outlawing certain deviant sexual practices. The only way the left can implement their agenda is through the LEAST accountable branch - the judiciary, usurping the role of the legislative.
Excellent observation.
Compare American, Latin American, European, and even Islamic-region Libertarians (yes, there are some, and boy do they have a tough row to hoe)... the political philosophies of these groups will be at least 90% congruent, across the board -- because "libertarianism" is a concrete, defined Term. By comparison, American, Latin American, European, and Islamic-region "conservatives" will have very little in common, save for a general preference for the established and traditional over radical upheaval (which begs the question, do we really want to "conserve" all of the existing Government impositions which have become established in American politics?).
How about whatever, from their website:
"Our vision is to be the national leader in experiential education"
Now, here's an easy way for the confused editor - If Thomas Jefferson would agree with the policy, it is probably what today would be considered 'conservative'. If Karl Marx would agree with it, it is what today is called 'liberal'.
Liberal:
He is right, that word gives them too much credit...they arent freeing vice grips from middle east people, they want my money for social causes. I call them socialists plain and simple.
A conservative shoots him in the driveway...
----Michael Savage
Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
4 a : increasing in extent or severity < a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases < a progressive tax>
Other than that, Deutchman seems to make a lot of sense. He even hits on the idea that FDR was the primary person changing "liberal" from the old meaning dealing with freedom to meaning not quite as fascist as Germany and Italy. Krans, on the other hand, is a complete fool.
"Liberals are concerned first with justice and equity issues"
No, they are concerned with economic control and redistibution of income. Transfering from the producers to the non-producers is not equitable nor just.
Liberals oppose the reach of the Homeland Security Department and the extensiveness of the Patriot Act. Conservatives see both as necessary to our survival.
Maybe he should drop by FR so see our Patriot Act battles. Dems oppose the Patriot Act and many Republicans support it because the Republicans are in charge. Many of the Patriot Act provisions are things Clinton's (In)Justice Department were begging for during his administration.
Liberal:
'nuff said.
That's where you start getting in to the neocon/paleocon debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.