What is Liberalism?

Sofia, because Conservatives have been demonizing Liberals for years? I fault Conservatives for making it a dirty word, and I fault Liberals for letting them.

1) How can you demonize a word?
2) You think liberals haven't criticised Conservatism? The poor liberals have been pushed up against the wall, innocent of any untoward comments about Conservatives?


But, you don't have to waste your time responding. I thought someone would come up with a reason I hadn't heard. If this is the real reason, the argument is as lame as I thought it was.

No personal offense intended to anyone.

In high school "gay" was used to mean "lame".

One example.

Demonize a group of people they label "Liberals", to the extent that the word "Liberal" has become a word that people hesitate to use to describe themselves.

I was answering your question, not implying that Liberals don't criticize Conservatives.

It's not a surprise that you don't want me to waste my time responding, since you have me all figured out. You can respond if you like

Craven--
Was lame or gay demonized? Wasn't it just used to mean something else? Like "cat", "cool" or any other hundred words?

My point is that conservatives and liberals have always used those same words to describe themselves and the opposition. Why did liberals turn tail on their terminology, and conservatives didn't? This, no one can give me an answer to. One side was no different than the other.

Violet, I never assumed or inferred I had you figured out. You had answered the question, and it was the same answer I always get. No need to expend either of our energies on that, so I let you know I didn't expect an answer.

That's the answer, whether you think it's lame or not.

Why do YOU think "liberals turned tail on their terminology, and conservatives didn't"? Perhaps you can help us all learn the real reason. It promises to be an education...

Nope.

I can't figure it out.

Conservatives have been just as bashed and maligned at libs, but don't seem to get miffed at being called conservatives.

I am always astounded at how liberal talking heads and newsies take the term like a personal affront. Thought someone could provide a believable reason. It's like the latest PC term. Pretty soon, you won't be able to print it or say it.

To be honest, I never perceived the word "Conservative" as being inherently negative. I guess I didn't get that message from the "Liberal media".

knee jerk liberals vs knee pad conservatives

That's interesting........I think.

I don't consider the term 'liberal' inherently negative, either. I describe myself as socially liberal.

I've just been seeing alot of liberals fussing on TV about being called liberals.

I haven't noticed that on TV, but perhaps the folks you saw were fussing about the way the word was used, not that the word was used.

Do you consider yourself a Liberal Republican?

I wish the Republican Party had elected John McCain to run in 2000.

I like the candle, Violet.

I don't fall easily into a category. I was very interested in McCain, because I WANT CAMPAIGN REFORM!!! But, McCain is a bit of a roughshod, my way or the highway kinda guy. I read up on him, and listened to his speeches, looked at his voting record... It was a toss up.

In the end, it wasn't Bush strengths that made my decision. It was McCain weaknesses (as perceived by me.)

For me, it's always the lesser of the competing evils.

It may seem funny, now, but I was worried about how McCain might come off diplomatically to the rest of the world....

That is funny

I'm with you on campaign reform.

"Individualism" is also labeled as "Liberalism."
(I am more individualistic (than I am any other).)

Does anyone feel like talking about Affirmative Action, Welfare, Universal Health Coverage, & other "socialist" sore spots? Are there viable alternatives that don't make it the responsibility of the government? Should programs like these disappear all toghether, or should they be reformed, funded, and administered by NGOs? I'm wondering what the possibilities are...

how about the Bureau of Indian Affairs

I have long been a vocal supporter of welfare ( not the abberation formerly known as welfare or the kick in the ass now known as welfare), affirmative action, universal health coverage ( did you notice how the same people now administering the HMOs are treating us exactly as they warned Clinton's program would? Just, they wanted the pie all to themselves). One need not be a flaming socialist to seek social justice, just concerned that it be administered properly.

Public health, for example, is a public good not necessarily supplied fully through private sector. It must be provided by volunteers or by public measures otherwise.

I'm not in favor of affirmative action, unless perhaps it comes in the form of a concentrated effort to improve education for minorities.

I am in favor of having a safety net for the unemployed & unemployable, but I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve it.

I'm also in favor of the idea of universal health coverage, but again, I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve it.