Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

i was just wondering because many people seem to regard being a liberal as being bad.

By Ickyfoo (Ickyfoo) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 02:30 pm: Edit

ha, i wish i lived where you lived. where i am, being a conservative is like having a disease.

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Being liberal is not a bad thing.

It's the treehugers, activits, etc etc etc who give a liberal a bad name.

look up the libertarian party on yahoo.

i spelt that wrong.

By Moonshot2004 (Moonshot2004) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 03:34 pm: Edit

A liberal, in the strictest sense, just means someone who is interested in gaining "liberties" and rights for the individual within society. It's taken on a negative meaning lately, as people have associated the word with the above mentioned tree huggers and violent environmental activists...

The word conservative, though, has also taken a negative meaning in recent years -- somehow it got associated with crazy old right-winger radio personalities who are unwilling to move toward the "middle" at all.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 03:36 pm: Edit

What's the adage again?

Liberals follow their heart, the others follow their brain.

PS Associating liberals with treehuggers, and environmentalists is not exhaustive enough. Aren't socialists and communists also liberals?

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Libertarians are not liberal except on social issues. They are probably more conservative than most Republicans.

By Memememe (Memememe) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Excuse me. Treehuggers and environmentalists are great people, who support real issues. It saddens me to think that you think they're the bad part of being liberal.

Consider that most cities in the United States have clean air and water. How many countries in the world can have that sort of a claim?

I'm a very strong environmentalist. However, I do take issue with some environmentalist who don't accept reality. I think protection is not the key. It's sustainable development which will keep us going in the future. Things like nuclear powerplants and fusion should be actively researched and implemented (but please get rid of the coal powerplants). I don't exactly admire the passionate approach of many environmentalists and wished they thought in terms of science a little more. However, I think if it weren't for the Rachel Carsons and Ralph Naders within our midst, where would we be today? Look at other countries. America is one really clean nation.

Environmentalists seek to conserve the beauty of nature for posterity. It's not even a liberal versus conservative issue. It's an issue that is deep in the heart of people, one that both Democrats and Republicans can believe in. If you want to disagree, remember, who formed EPA? Nixon, a Republican.

I find infinitely greater harm in the Christian right and NRA than I do in some people who love nature.

If you want to blast liberals, choose a better group. Like Communists.

By Moonshot2004 (Moonshot2004) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Meme, my apologies if you thought I was blasting all environmentalists. I'm definitely not anti-environment: I like the outdoors, my parents are active contributors to the Sierra Club, etc.

I was referring to the "violent environmentalists" -- those people who vandalize SUV dealerships (saw that on the news recently) as if that's a constructive way of improving the world. I'm glad to hear that you take issue with those out of touch with reality.

Keep up the fight. And, there's no denying the effect that Nader has had on this country... What about his book, which forced the auto industry to make safer vehicles? (was that him?)

By Royalchk (Royalchk) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Anyone who would call him/herself a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' is oversocialized and should learn to thnk independently and rationally. If they then conclude that they agree on all issues with the stated beliefes of some groupd traditionally considered 'liberal' or 'conservative', then they should associate themself with that group and not with either of those epithets.

By Trojan1444 (Trojan1444) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 06:41 pm: Edit

I haven't heard a good definition yet on this thread, so here goes. In America today:

Liberal - Someone who believes government has a role in improving the lives of citizens. This means having social programs like Medicare and Welfare and having regulations that keep the environment clean. Because of these programs, citizens may have to pay more taxes.

Conservative - Someone who believes in limited government and lower taxes, even if it means less social programs that could help citizens. Conservatives believe it isn't necessarily government's role to implement large programs that help citizens. They believe in less regulations on everything from corporations, guns and the environment.


Those are two fairly accurate, unbiased definitions that apply to today's world.


Oh, and Xiggi, if you want to call socialists and communists "liberals" then you also have to call the Taliban and Nazis "conservatives."

By Mahras (Mahras) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Double that Trojan1444......

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Actually, most Americans are moderate.

Very few are actually liberal or conseravative.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Check out politicalcompass.org. It organizes issues into economic and social, then plots people on a Cartesian grid.

By Memememe (Memememe) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 02:48 pm: Edit

``Actually, most Americans are moderate.''

Very true.

According to this one study I saw, less than half of self-proclaimed Democrats are actually liberal, and less than half of Republicans are conservative. The rest, including the independents, are moderate. I tend to go way liberal in a lot of issues (social, health care, taxes, affirmative actions-even though I'm Asian, foreign policy, environment), but tend to agree with Republicans in others, when it involves drugs, or sometimes when Democrats go overboard with unrealistic programs with absolutely no purpose than to be a show. Therefore, I tend to be very liberal (Green partyish) but in a few cases don't really fit into the whole liberal mindset. I kinda get mad occasionally that Democrats are "selling out," but I understand, they have to win elections and that means being moderate or mildly conservative at this stage in history. Exactly why I think Wesley Clarke should be Democratic candidate. But now I'm digressing.

I misunderstood the point about environmentalists. Reading carefully, Moonshot, you did mention "violent" environmentalists. I agree, violence is never the answer to anything. The same thing applies to pro-lifers who kill abortion doctors (then they're not really pro-life, are they?). Passive resistance is not really the answer either, because we are not a world of saints. There is a better way in this country of getting things done, even if it seems to take forever. It's called legislation. Convince your Congressmen, convince the public. Don't use violence. It's worked with consumer protection, civil rights, women's rights. Compared to those causes, any fight is probably not as tough. Just my couple of cents.

By Lhm501 (Lhm501) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Trojan1444, I think your definitations are the accepted view. The thing that kills me is "they believe in less regulation". That should be amended, they firmly believe in regulating the most personal parts of peoples lives, reproductive rights, sexual orientation rights and even though they haven't proposed any legislation YET barring worship of anything except Jesus, they would really, really, like to.

By Ledzeppelin2000 (Ledzeppelin2000) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 03:41 pm: Edit

i gotta agree with lhm501, he was right, and can i ask, what is wrong with comunism and socialism, they are two government forms which are perfectly acceptable, nobody seems to attack, as trojan1444 the cosrvative totaliairisitc*spelling* and facist side of conservatism, but in america, liberal and consevative get mixed up with democrats and rebublicans in the way the people view them

By Memememe (Memememe) on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Oh no. Let's not say Republicans love regulations, because they would never admit to it. Instead, let's say they believe in traditional American values (by which they mean 1950s, not native American values). Basically, it's white, Christian, middle-class values that they seek to conserve, although the coming of diversity tells them to look forward. Democrats believe in civil liberty. I think by regulation we mean business. Republicans certainly want to deregulate a lot of things in business.

When I get mad at a conservative, I tell them this. Liberals look forward. Conservatives look backward. If conservatives had their way the blacks would still be segregated and Asians wouldn't have gotten anywhere.