h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was extremely surprised when I heard that there is currently something of a backlash in US public opinion against people who can be described as 'liberal'. To my mind, the word can only mean good things, i.e. Getting along with everyone as equals, no matter who they are, and letting them get on with their own business unless it interferes with others. Sure, it may be more an ideal than a method but, as something to try and work towards, I don't see how it can be argued with...

Liberals tend to try and run things based on the way they want the world to be rather than on how it is. At least conservatives tend to be a bit more realistic. Liberalness also seem to push towards a polarised society, in the same way that fascism does. People still aren´t allowed unpopular views.

"Liberals tend to try and run things based on the way they want the world to be rather than on how it is"
And that's a bad thing? Given how the world is, i.e. not particularly fair and ideal, isn;t it better to try and run things in a more ideal manner than to just say 'well, that's how it works, best make as much money as I can before I die'? If you don't aspire to anything then you can't achieve anything.

"Liberalness also seem to push towards a polarised society, in the same way that fascism does."
Sorry, could you explain that for me please? I assume that statement stands on its own and doesn;t have an implicit "and conservatives don't" in it.

I do think that we should strive towards a better world. We do need to change it. But often I find that liberals make policies based on the assumption that the world is already that way. And sometimes seem rather naive in their view on people.

No, I don´t think the conservaties are better in this respect. Just that the liberals are not all that good either. They might talk about free speech, but are also quite keen to silence opinions they don´t want to hear. I might agree with the general opinion of liberals, they have some good ideas, but I don´t want to see it become an official opinion that everybody have to follow.

Well I am a socialist, I wonder what the US opinion of people like me is ...

Thanks Xan, that's what I was thinking.
Although I think I'd prefer the term 'optimistic' to 'naive'.

not just socialist, but Socialist with a big 'S' ?
oooh, dangerous!

----
"Liberalness also seem to push towards a polarised society, in the same way that fascism does."
Sorry, could you explain that for me please? I assume that statement stands on its own and doesn;t have an implicit "and conservatives don't" in it.
----

In political philosophy, there's a contrast drawn between 'liberals' (Mill, Rawls, Nozick etc) and 'communitarians' (Sandel, Macintyre, Walzer). The difference between the two is said to be that liberals want the state to be as neutral as possible between different competing conceptions of the good (ways of life), and typically start political philosophy with the individual.

Communitarians criticise the primacy of the individual within liberal theory - why should the individual come first when so much of the individual's identity comes from society? Communiatarians want the values of society/community to be the values of the state. They think that the best way to govern a society cannot be decided in advance without detailed consideration of a society's history, culture, and traditions.

A 'liberal' system (in this sense) would be much less united than a communitarian one. In allowing (and indeed encouraging) diversity of lifestyle, culture, and opinion, you could end up with a society where different groups end up having very little in common with each other. This isn't quite the same thing as a polarised society, though.

A communitarian system need not be totalitarian, but would encourage a strong sense of shared values for everyone. It need not oppose diversity, but it would actively encourage unity in a way that a liberal system wouldn't.

thanks Otto - very well put.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, however as far as I can see in the context of US politics it is viewed as being wishy washy, soft on security issues, soft on social problems etc.

As a european socialist (perhaps I have now mellowed to being a social democrat?) I tend more to the communitarian rather than liberal stand point, i.e. as a community we have (or should have) certain shared or common values and goals and these should be the principles upon which we operate etc.

At the same time I also passionatley believe that diversity is to be cherished and celebrated as this gives our community its vibrancy etc.

Well I'm a liberal and I have many mental problems. I know that it's not a problem that all liberals have, but it is what's wrong with A liberal.

People say 'wishy-washy', but what does it actually mean? It sounds like a rather vague and childish phrase to me...

It's odd that "liberal" has become almost a term of abuse in the USA; in some ways it's a very liberal society (with some very illiberal active groups there).

Another oddity (which is probably irrelevant): in Canada the main "left-of-centre" party is Liberal; in Australia the main "right-of-centre" party is Liberal.

And in Britain, the least successful of the three parties, and pretty much dead centre, is the Liberal Democrats.

Are the Lib-Dems "liberal"? Hard to say.

I'll vote for our current MP, a very helpful representative. As for central, well yes and no. Certainly "right" of many who mutter but retain the Labour whip, but maybe "left" of Blair and Blunkett,

There don't seem to be many who aren't left of Blunkett, especially in mainstream politics.

>> People say 'wishy-washy', but what does it actually mean? It sounds like a rather vague and childish phrase to me...<<

This leads to the (UK) term of abuse, "woolly-minded liberal".

Just to confuse matters, in the UK:

The Conservative & Unionist Party is the most liberal.
The Liberal Democrat Party is the most left wing.
The Labour Party is (currently) the centrist.

RF

Conservative & Unionist Party most liberal
libertarian economics + social authoritarianism does not equal liberal

OK, what's "wrong" with being liberal.

Conservatives:

- tough on crime
- strong on defence
- lower taxes, esp. for the rich but also for everyone else
- encourage individual responsibility and achievement (e.g. property ownership)
- prefer privatised industry
- oppose union influences
- in favour of information control, e.g censorship

Liberals:

- soft on crime (e.g. favour treatment rather than punishment for drug users)
- weak on defence (e.g. favour arms control over more spending)
- higher taxes, esp. for the rich
- encourage dependence on the state with comprehensive social security provision and council housing
- prefer nationalised industry
- allow strong union influence
- in favour of wide freedom of speech.

Now: if you're a conservative, that list of liberal attributes is a damning indictment of what's wrong with them. If you're a liberal, it's a pithy description of why they're RIGHT. Which only makes it the more suprising to me that people can change from one to the other overnight.

H.

Hoo

I think your lists are fine except instead of liberal you should really have put old style socialist.

From the perspective of the liberal/social democrat agenda the list needs clarification as follows:

<>

The liberal/social democrat agenda is not "to encourage dependence" but it does believe that a society should provide for those least able to provide for themselves through the provision of such items as social security, social housing, free healthcare at the point of need etc.

<>

This is untrue - the desire is that strategic industries (rail, gas , electric, water & possibly phones) should be heavily regulated by the state to ensure that consumers pay a fair price etc. There has been a growing recognition over the last 20 years that the state really is not best placed to run these industries directly and should leave day to day management to private enterprise.

<>

Again you overstate the case - the agenda is to encourage the participation of all social partners &/or their representative bodies in the decision making processes (labour relations, industry, governement etc.)

I also think you've got the freedom of speech/censorship thing the wrong way round. It is Socialist regimes that suppress information and censor, not Conservatives.

RF