The Democrat Convention---2004

How does one determine a legislator's ideology and policy other than by examining that legislator's legislative record and public statements? By those presents, regardless the irrelevant comparison to the global political stage, Kerry is unarguably to the left of the majority of those comprising the US Legislature. To say that to assign the designation "Left" or "Liberal" to someone would be an attempt at slander entails the converse be true as well; if the appelation "Liberal" is slanderous, so to must be the appelation "Conservative".

And doubtlessly, to some it is. The number of people who were willing to support Nader in 2000, and his ability to have made a start this year, as well as a Green Party attempting to form, are more than ample evidence that many people who hold liberal views are not satisfied that they are represented by the Democratic Party. If we truly had liberals in government, where were they when Reagan brought union busting into fashion? Why has there been one single, abortive attempt at a national health care policy in the eleven administrations since the end of World War II? That Kerry's voting record puts him to the left of the Republican party doesn't make him "liberal." And certainly by international standards, there isn't a liberal in office in this country at all.

Ehm ... I dont think Kerry is for a ban on any kind of guns for the army ... crucial little distinction there.

How does a Senator reveal his or ideology more accurately than through his or her voting record?

How does a Senator influence policy other than through legislation?

If Ted Kennedy, so rhetorically vociferous a liberal, had a voting record that was rated Conservative in the same manner that Kerry's record was rated Liberal, would he still be considered a Liberal?

Do the liberal groups who keep tabs on the liberal voting proclivities of legislators only do so to slander those whom they esteem through this practice?

Global standards, such as they may or may not be, are immaterial to the American political experience. Within the context of American politics the labels Liberal and Conservative do, in fact, mean something more than insults.

I always find it interesting when self-professed liberals (and here I do not necessarily single out Setanta) on the one hand bemoan the absence of true liberals in American politics and on the other hand attempt to shield a Democratic candidate from being so labeled.

There are plenty of liberals who consider Conservative an insult, and yet Conservatives, and most Republicans do not run from the label. Why is this so? Moderates are not religiously listening to Rush Limbaugh so it can't be that sneering Republicans are better at mud slinging than sneering Democrats.

Setanta possibly a liberal? That's on the far side of funny.


Shielding? I'd have to say that from my perspective, which is definitely not an American one - it's protecting the term liberal - not the candidate - that I'm interested in. Americans seem to have forgotten what liberal means. It is not left, it is not right, it is liberal. Finn, you are one person in particular that I would have expected to understand what the term really means - not just what it means to American media-heads.

Too many conservatives have invested far too much in making liberal an epithet to abandon the effort now.

I dunno, Set; I figure the liberals have done quite well enough in that regard themselves as to require no help no help from us

Really, the argument over the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in context of American politics as compared to politics elsewhere is silly at best. Is a crisp a paper-thin salted bit of fried potato or a desert with a crumbled browned sugar-butter-and-batter topping? Where in America might you let a hoarding or a flat, find a dust tip, hire a lorry, or engage a solicitor? An American attorney at his desk in his vest would be a wholly unremarkable sight, while a Brit who's customary work attire is what there is termed a vest more likely would be a navvy than a solicitor. In much of the English speaking world, a lift gets you to from floor to floor within a building, while in The US a lift gets you from one neighborhood or town to another with someone else driving. An Ozzian waitress asked by a dinner guest for a napkin might be at the very least nonplussed. Its all a matter of local useage. Quit bein' so damned conservative; its just that sorta thing that makes the term "liberal employment of common sense" an oxymoron.

The distinction is valid in political discussions, whether or not you wish to erect a smokescreen of minor linguistic differences within the American/English language. Liberal refers to someone with a particular social agenda, and there is no evidence in Kerry's voting record that he supports or intends to further such programs if elected. For the majority of the world, the very absence of meaningful social programs in the wealthiest nation is evidence of an absence of liberality in the political parties. There is no national health care, labor unions shrink and are under constant assault. Ray-gun enshrined federal union-busting. University educations are astronomically expensive, and there is little provision beyond some feeble state programs, or significantly burdensome loan programs, for the majority of citizens to attend. Our infant mortality rate is appalling, our drug companies are free to, and do gouge the customer shamelessly, while gobbling up federal dollars for research, leaving them free to use R & D money for marketing and advertising--which is what has been alleged in recent years by industry insiders. Toilet seats on bombers cost more than i pay in rent each month, but if you attempt to sue defense contractors, you'll stumble over that clause in every contract with them which assures that the taxpayer will foot the bill for their legal defense in civil court.

It is not a matter of local usage at all. The rest of the world has a notion of what constitutes liberality in politics, and there is an overwhelming agreement about it. The rest of the world has a notion of what is right, left and center in politics, and there is overwhelming agreement about that. There is no evidence of a living breathing left operating anywhere in the U.S. as a significant political entity, and Kerry's voting record is that of a conservative Democrat--there's nothing liberal about it.

In fact, i'd have preferred to see John Edwards in the number one position, because he has the background to understand liberal issues. Were it not for the theiving crew in the administration right now, lead by their comic opera dunce, i doubt i'd vote for Kerry at all. He's far too conservative for my taste otherwise.

Kerry might well be to the right of Trotsky, but I see scant evidence of what in The US would be termed conservatism in his voting record. That aside, however, I point again to the fact that in his twenty years in the Senate, he's successfully sponsored virtually no substantive legislation ... hardly a CV I would consider a strong recommendation for elevation to The Executive Branch.

I also gotta say I get a huge kick out of the claims of some that The Current Incumbent is at once a witless dunce and a cunning, crafty prevaricator. That's priceless.

I for one have never indulged in such a conundrum. My rule of thumb is, if it comes out of his mouth, and it makes coherent sense, someone else wrote it; if it is a breathtaking display of stumbling linguistic incompetence, it's ad lib, and pure Shrubism.

I don't lump you with the nonthinkers, Set ... whether I agree with your thoughts or not, I acknowledge you put a lot of energy into the excersize and come by your opinions in legitimate, honest, and honorable manner. I admire your loquatiousness and depth of knowledge, too. Its both a pleasure and a challenge to debate you; you're just as worthy an opponent as you are a muchly esteemed freind.


Even if you couldn't find milk in Wisconsin

Ehm ... I dont want to be bothersome ... but over here in mainland Europe, a liberal would be against social programs, against national health care, and highly suspicious of labour unions. On most of continental Europe, a liberal would be for privatisation, for liberalisation (the word says it) and overall for the free market. All of that starkly sets the liberals aside from the socialdemocrats, socialists and other leftists, even while they share their moral free-thinkingness. Its why in 7 out of 10 West-European countries, the main liberal party is considered a right-wing party ...

This is where I gratefully smuggle in a link to the the list of member parties of the Liberal International: the main party listed for Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland are all considered right-wing, and the main ones in Croatia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and the UK centrist. Though in Denmark and the Netherlands, the larger right-wing liberal party is flanked in parliament by a smaller centre-left liberal party, the only countries in Europe I can think of where the main liberal party is considered left-wing are Hungary, Macedonia and Slovenia - and Austria, if you count the small Liberal Forum rather than the large Freedom Party that descended into far-right populism.

But we've been round and round on this one a coupla times already ...

The way I was taught, the classic definition of 'liberal' was to push the envelope, effect change, do things differently. The classic definition of 'conservative' was to preserve and conserve time proved traditions, values, and practices--if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The modern U.S. definitions are much different. Now 'liberal' indicates those who favor the government redistributing the national wealth from the haves to the have nots; allowing social freedoms whether or not these are offensive to traditional traditions and values. Fiscally, liberals look to government to engineer or effect solutions to human problems. They attach no moral values to public activity and speech except that which seeks to object to other public activity and speech.

Now 'conservative' indicates those who still hold on to time proved traditions and values, who value personal responsibility and achievement, who largely believe government should do only that which cannot be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. Conservatives hold Lockean views of property ownership and believe requiring decency in public activity and speech in no way violates the constitution.

Nimh's definitions of liberal and conservative in Europe hurt my head to think about. It's like playing Mahjong where the directions are all backwards and in reverse.

Habibi, i bow to your superior knowledge of this subject--and you prove my point, that liberals and the left are not synonymous, and that Kerry is not necessarily a liberal just because he is to the right of the Republicans.

I continue to assert that the gop is desparate to label Kerry a liberal, in fervent hope that it will have a slanderous effect.

LOL! Yeah - can you imagine how all of us feel whenever we hear how Americans talk of "liberals"?

You already said it: "the modern U.S. definitions are much different" than the original ones and the ones elsewhere ... and it creates this incessant confusion between Americans and others, here on A2K for example, when the word "liberal" comes up!

Across continental Europe (and in Australia too I think), liberals may differ on this and that point, but everywhere share the same bottom line: for the free market, sceptical about state intervention.

Because "liberal" also usually means a free-thinking stance on religion and morals (and issues like abortion, gay rights, the woman's place, drugs, though often not about immigration), it means a distinction from both social-democrats and conservatives/christian-democrats - and depending on which topics are most important in a country, that will end the liberals up being called "left" or "right".

For example, in Poland the "moral axis" overrides the "economical axis". Thus the liberals there may have been responsible for some of the most hardcore capitalist market reforms, but since they're also secular, pro-choice etc, they're still considered centrist or left-wing. But in most of Western Europe, where the "moral" issues play a relatively small role and politics are focused overwhelmingly on economical issues, they are almost always considered right-wing. Its kinda like what you call libertarians with a small "l", though much, much more softcore ... more like a mix between libertarians and Democrats.

Liberals being free-thinkers though, there are far greater differences between the various European liberal parties than there are among the different social-democratic and labour parties, though ... that adds a little confusion.

The easiest way to get one's head around the different mahjong rules here is to think in terms of three rather than two poles: leftist, liberal and christian-democrat/conservative. Add the "extra colour" on the margins (greens and communists on the left, xenophobe populists on the right), and you can find your way through the politics of most European countries ... :wink:

Just for sake of irony, and stirring the pot, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln:

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?

From the Cooper Union Address, February 27, 1860.

I always am greatly amused to think that the Republicans originally viewed themselves as radicals, and the Democrats as conservative obstructionists.

The use of the word liberal to describe a political position first appears in the English language in 1819, in newspaper articles discussing the speeches of members of Parliament commenting upon the then recent massacre of workers demanding the right to organize at St. Peters Fields, become infamous as the "Peterloo Massacre." The term conservative first appears in 1835, and is used to provide a term for those opposing "liberalism."

In that context, liberal has always meant in North America, those in favor of social reform and "progress." Although i cannot speak for the contemporary situation, it certainly meant the same throughout most of English political history since 1835.

OK! Interesting. Well - the first liberals in Europe also, of course, were pitted against conservatives in a fight for political liberties - but from the start, their fight also concerned economical liberties. The free market once was a "progressive", sort of anti-authoritarian concept after all! But the same concepts of economic liberty did not play well with the emerging labour movement, and thus through the 19th century uprisings onwards the liberals were outflanked by the "reds", who shared their desire for political liberty but had wholly different ideas about what "economic freedom" entailed ... (but you know all that).

So basically from the French Revolution onwards, the liberals were always on an in-between pole of their own between conservatives and the left.


Well, up until Labour took over from the Liberals as the main counterpart to the Tories, I assume? From then on it was Labour that waved the banner of social programs and the welfare state, after all. It was aversion to the Labour Party's then-increasing penchant for state intervention that eventually drove dissidents in the party to found the SDP and subsequently merge with the "old" Liberals into the current-day Liberal Democrats.

Labour's rise and the Tories' continuing dominance did leave the Liberals in a kind of marginal, wishy-washy in-between position in the English body politic - where it still is, in fact. Thats why the UK even now is, with Finland, the only West-European country where the main liberal party in parliament is considered centrist rather than right-wing. (And why I've been using the word "mainland" and "continental" a lot in the posts above <winks>).

Well thanks for the polisci lesson Nimh. I actually copied and will need to read it several times I think before it actually computes in my feeble brain. But I do understand the dichotomy now when discussing liberal/conservative media etc. with Canadians and Europeans.

Using modern U.S. definitions of conservative and liberal, however, Kerry's voting record has been almost impeccable in supporting the liberal side and he now denounces the few 'conservative' votes he has cast.

Always glad to provide you with amusement ehbeth. This thread, though, has nothing to do with the political characterization of Setanta, unless he might what to introduce the topic.



Many words (fortunately or unfortunately) have more than one meaning, and a word like liberal is one of them. Often a currently legitimate meaning of a word is the result of a prior corruption of the original.

I do indeed know what the foundational definition of liberal is but it has developed a secondary meaning when used in terms of the internal political debate of a country which itself can be classified as liberal.

At some point, the insistence on affirmative action programs to resolve residual issues of institutionalized racism, becomes a conservative position.

School voucher programs to address the declining public educational system (particularly in inner cities) is a rather liberal approach.

Clearly in America, however, the latter is a Conservative approach as the former is a Liberal one, and, frankly, I don't believe that most people outside of America who follow its politics find themselves scratching their heads over this seeming paradox. Perhaps it is because they have come to some understanding of the American use of the terms or perhaps, as in so many other ways, the imperialistic American culture is transforming the definitions for them as well.

The use of the terms in American politics can be frustrating. So called Liberals are not consistently, or even inherently, progressive, and so called Conservatives are not consistently, or even inherently, traditional.

The use of the terms Right and Left (whether used inside or outside of America) can be frustrating as well. The spectrum of political ideology is circular, not linear, and at some point the Right and Left meet and become, by all substantive measures, indistinguishable: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Top it all off with the fact that the popular culture of the West (and increasingly the world) reinforces a positive spin to the tenets of liberalism and a negative one to those of conservatism, and the entire stew can be a bubbling mess.

People are not hardwired to accept ambiguity. We are driven to organize, to put things in their place so that we can, with relative quickness, judge their value or their danger. This leads to labeling: fruit is good; sabretooth is bad.

Obviously we are capable of more subtle thinking, but the drive to organize remains. Since it is impossible to know all of the individuals within the Republican or Democratic parties, and they themselves invite labeling by organizing themselves around political positions, it is natural that people will want to narrow the task of deciding upon leaders by putting them in defined categories, the optimum number being two: good v bad.

Over the years, defining these categories as Republican and Democrat has proven very unreliable, and while the parties may have established some equilibrium of late, with former Southern Democrats migrating to the GOP and former Northeastern Republicans migrating to the Democrats, the emphasis on the terms Liberal and Conservative, which it seems to me has its roots in the late 40's and early 50's, endures to this day.

The most interesting aspect of this phenomena is how the term Liberal became such a pejorative, in America, that Democrats now seeking elections outside of urban centers do all they can to shield themselves from having it stuck on them.

This is unfortunate for a number of reason, not the least of which is that liberalism in its foundational sense is at the core of this nation, but it is indicative that many of the policies and precepts of what became known as Liberalism in America, failed. There is simply no other way to explain it. One can argue that there was a deliberate Republican/Conservative campaign to taint the term, as used in the US, but such a campaign would never have had any traction unless it resonated with Americans.

As for what Liberal means in the US, look to Setanta's posting:



The liberalism that I consider the foundation of Western Civilization doesn't require social programs and labor unions. Perhaps the American Liberals (The Left) do, but not liberalism.

Thus, while it would be preferable to preserve the true meaning of the term liberal from both Rightwing smearing and Leftwing misappropriation, in the context of American politics it has taken on a secondary definition.

The same thing will happen to Progressive as well unless the conservative nature of the formerly Liberal policies and precepts that have failed is abandoned. Changing one's label from Liberal to Progressive doesn't change one's ideology.

I largely agree with Finn's take on it. While modern U.S. liberals are passionate in their convictions, their leaders seem to be apologetic and ashamed of the label. Conservatives don't mind being called conservatives by anybody.