Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A progressive differentiates himself from a liberal in terms of economic viewpoints. Both groups share common social values.
Liberals using the L-Word would be like Black people using the N-Word or Gay People using the F-Word.
Liberals could NEVER do anything like that.
Hopefully they will be drawn to Obama's corporatism and not taint the P-Word. You can't say that word on TV.
Hello
Never before have I read such a concise explanation of "liberal". Thank you thank you. I will keep this to teach my grandchildren about liberalism.
From a Blue State Democrat
To be a Republican is - if GW Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of that Gang are good representatives of this breed - to be a vicious War Criminal.
Mi>When are you US citizens going to put these scoundrels in jail where they belong, for the rest of their miserable lives?
-- GSC
Here I've gone all this time feeling cheap and tawdry for sticking to what seemed to be the ever-increasingly archaic name of liberal. In short, I never could figure out where I went wrong in not understanding what a progressive is.
I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I'm not progressive. I'm not a leftist. I refuse to identify with any of these labels for one simple reason: I refuse to participate in empty rhetorical group think.
Ask me what I think about a particular issue, and I'll tell you. But none of these labels are issues as such, they are grab bags of issues, the contents of which vary depending on who you ask.
The word 'liberal', as others have pointed out, derives from 'freedom'. I find it more than a little ironic that those who ostensibly promote freedom feel so obliged to associate themselves with a group.
GW Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, ... - the whole bunch of those vicious War Criminals (that's my opinion) should be put on trial and - if found guilty - should be confined to Guantanamo for the rest of their miserable lives under the same conditions as they approved and ordered for a whole lot of people they got tortured at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
-- GSC
Josef Stalin was a vicious thug, not very different in spirit and mind as those other vicious thugs, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Con Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and others...
The real difference was that the latter happened to be living in a still somewhat liberal USA (though they did everytyhing they could to make it a fascist state).
Put that in in your Rethuglican pipe and smoke it till it comes out of your ears.
-- GSC
The global conclusion of the 20th century was that racism and sexism are fundamentally wrong, and that all human beings have fundamental rights.
The global conclusion of the 21st century is that sentient animals also have inalienable rights - which can be seen in the passage of California's Prop 2.
It's also important to remember, however, that racism and sexism still exist. It's a mentality based on primitive "in-group/out-group" associations - the belief being that "people who look like me are more likely to share my beliefs/values". This is not true, but con artists love these people - "Yes, I AM one of you! Want to invest in my company?"
So, how do we overcome these latent tendencies in our society? Keep in mind that a lot of this is also about dominance - who gets to be the alpha male chimp? (or alpha female chimp, as the case may be?) Who gets to go first at the buffet, who gets their pick of the attractive young women (or men?), who gets to fly on a private jet... vs. who takes the bus? If large groups of people can be classified as permanently low-ranking civilians, then there is a lot less competition for the king's quarters.
So, if a small group finds it easier to hold onto power by employing prejudice as political strategy... yes, we are talking about the Republican Party here - "fear anyone who doesn't look like you" is one of their main party lines.
Thus, I'd advise against labeling yourself with anything other than "human being". It might be fair to describe your position on issues as liberal or conservative, but you might want to keep in mind the original meanings:
Liberal: as in liberate. A "liberal education" is intended to liberate the mind by exposing one to a wide variety of topics. Unfortunately, in the U.S. this usually became the "casual liberal education" rather than the far better "formal liberal education" - which requires good schools and a disciplined approach on the student's part.
Conservative: as in conserve. A "fiscal conservative" is one who carefully watches the books, makes sure the accounting is not fraudulent, does research before making investments, and is cautious about leverage and exposure - the EXACT opposite of the so-called conservatives in Washington, who really have a casually liberal attitude when it comes to finance.
Where these notions totally fail, however, is when it comes to talking about the two most critical issues: energy and the planetary ecology: air, water and soil.
What is a liberal attitude on drinking poisoned water? What's a conservative viewpoint on rising sea levels? What's the liberal vs. the conservative view on energy supplies? Wars for oil in the Middle East? Corrupt middlemen manipulating energy prices with the government's blessing? The death of a hundred thousand salmon in California and Oregon rivers because of agribusiness using their political clout to deliver cheap water to their plantations? What's the conservative opinion on that?
Such actions should be viewed for what they are: criminal.
All I know is what I believe. There are good reasons for what I believe, reasons culled from science, history, religion, and philosophy, and nurtured in my gut. I am ardently in favor of everything that is beautiful, good, and true, and sternly opposed to whatever is not. My convictions don't lack courage, and, while always formidable, they are never so strong as when I proscribe the thoughts and actions of others. If I appear proud, it is only to honor of the truth I serve. Whatever label distinguishes me from cynics and fools, that is the label I choose.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
