As someone from one of the many countries with a right/left/liberal split, I really don’t like that American politics conflates left and liberal together.
I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation.
The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism.
>> I'm not convinced these kind of semantic disputes matter. Non-Americans don't typically identify as "libertarian", but that doesn't make it hard to express or describe the idea of being pro-business and anti-regulation.
> The word "liberal" means exactly that - showing preference and deference to private enterprise - in the overwhelming majority of the world, as it refers to economic liberalism.
Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism."
> Except in America, where it took on a somewhat narrower, variant meaning that focuses on "social liberalism."
Right and you'll find large populations of both Democrats and Republicans fall under the "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" banner with Democrats generally skewing one way a bit and Republicans the other. But ultimately, both sides headed the same direction just at different speeds and priority.
I think the woke left and MAGA types have made more noise lately and it has disturbed some of the balance we've had the last 70 years where everyone is essentially onboard with the New Deal Regime.
Not really though. We are so immersed in it and the country is so different today than before it that we don't even notice it. We went from a pure capitalist country (where government in large part existed to clear way for capitalist projects and ambitions) to a very managed one with the New Deal. Social safety nets, benefits and entitlements, fiscal and monetary policy, and government "programs"/departments numbering in the hundreds or thousands did not exist before the New Deal.
It's the result of the 2 party system. From 1860 to 1932 the liberals and the conservatives belonged to one political party, as is common elsewhere. After 1932, racial issues, and civil rights issues, brought the liberals together with the labor unions, and since then the "liberals" have been seen as belonging to the left.
However, during the 1800s and early 1900s, the word "conservative" continued to hold its monarchist overtones, and therefore it was rejected by all American politicians, regardless of their party. The first presidential candidate to describe himself as a "conservative" was Barry Goldwater in 1964.
I'm very curious, but what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in?
I've tried googling but can't find anything related to a right-left-liberal distinction.
But in case it helps explain, at least in America, "liberal" has the basic connotation of "individual equality". Originally this meant equality before the law, often called "classical liberalism" which both left and right generally endorse.
But then the left become associated with a greater expanded equality -- more social programs, safety nets, education, etc. The left therefore became associated with the term "liberal" while the right with "conservative" -- liberals interested in greater social equality, conservatives believing in more of a natural social hierarchy (still on top of legal equality). Then conservatives came up with the moderately-used term "neoliberal" to promote their market-based economic policies based on classical liberalism, in opposition to the left-wing expanded equality social policies. There's also the term "libertarian" which refers to classical liberalism without anything added -- no social equality of the left, and also no conservative cultural values of the right.
But nevertheless, I'm extremely curious to know what you call liberal that is distinct from both right and left?
Liberal as defined by a leftist tends to mean, in my experience, a deference to less regulated markets, and support for needs based social programs.
Leftists (so called) economically challenge the idea that markets are inherently good, asserting that many industries should not be market based. Health insurance, prisons, schools, and so on. They tend to be more open to universal social programs which don't require stringent needs testing.
Leftists tend to distinguish themselves from liberals more than distinguish liberals from conservatives in my experience. I would say liberals in America have much higher respect for marginalized groups, and they seem to have a desire to solve problems, as opposed to Republicans.
edit at 1636 UTC: My above comment is quickly thought out and from mobile. I think "party alignment" would be somewhat more complex if our voting system allowed more than two parties to exist.
> what does "liberal" mean in your context? What country are you in?
I quite like the definitions here[0] honestly, and to quote from that:
> We believe markets are astonishingly good at creating wealth but less good at distributing that wealth. We support a market-based economy that promotes economic growth and nurtures innovation, while also supporting a safety net that shares the gains of that growth with everyone.
In the UK, I would contrast that with a left who are skeptical of free markets, and a right who are skeptical that anyone who doesn't accumulate wealth under free markets should be entitled to any.
Assuming you're American, and assuming my memory of their positions is correct, Elizabeth Warren is a liberal where Bernie is a leftist.
OK, I see what you mean. Does that correspond to actual political parties in the UK? Is there a "liberal" party that is considered neither left nor right?
I would say that in the US, what you're calling liberal would translate to "centrist/mainstream Democrats" who believe in the market but also in a social safety net. In other words, the majority of Democrats. But we also just call that the left, because it's the mainstream political viewpoint that is opposite to the right.
What you are calling the left, we call "progressive", which is why you see so many references to the "progressive wing" of the Democrats. Which includes Bernie and also AOC, who also call themselves "socialists", but in the US this doesn't mean communist -- it's not about government ownership, but vastly stronger regulation, protection, and government action generally.
While Elizabeth Warren is really her own idiosyncratic category. She's doing her own thing that isn't really aligned with mainstream Democrats or with the progressives, or with anybody else particularly. If anything, you might call her more "technocrat" than anything else.
But at the end of the day I hope I've answered your question as to why liberal = left in the US. Because liberal means pro-equality, and for whatever historical reasons, equality moved from mere legal equality to a more robust equality of opportunity. And we use "classical liberal" to distinguish the old liberal from the new.
> I've tried googling but can't find anything related to a right-left-liberal distinction.
America is the only country in which "liberal" is thought have any relationship to "left." In Australia, the right-wing party is called the Liberal Party.
"Liberals" are free market advocates who support change through competition and a hands off approach by government. "Conservatives" prefer the government support of firm moral values and established traditional institutions.
Somehow the US thinks that "liberal" means having a concerned look on your face, and that it's somehow related to communism, which takes the exact opposite position on the liberal's only defining belief. Communism shares so much more with conservatism, starting with an absolute belief in the importance of morality and institutions. Communism's major difference from conservatism is that it believes that the traditional institutions were created and controlled by a small group of inbred people for a small group of inbred people (which is undeniable, but also when conservatives get off the bus.)
> America is the only country in which "liberal" is thought have any relationship to "left."
That's simply not true. Because "liberal" is a word that means many different things in many different countries, it's a famously malleable term.
For example, Wikipedia says (emphasis mine):
> The definition of liberal party is highly debatable... This is a broad political current, including left-wing, centrist and right-wing elements. All liberal parties emphasise individual rights, but they differ in their opinion on an active role for the state. This list includes parties of different character, ranging from classical liberalism to social liberalism, conservative liberalism to national liberalism... [1]
Indeed, a quick search for the term "left" on that page shows that "liberal" is used to describe leftist parties in the Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, Croatia, and North Macedonia at least. It's not just an American thing.
I think the two party system is ultimately to blame for this, though I have no idea what the solution would be. Up in Canada, we have three left-leaning parties, NDP, Liberal, and Green, which represent some very different political views but all have varying levels of representation in our parliament.
After living in the States a few years it's become clear that none of the 3rd parties are taken very seriously, and if you're not R you've gotta be D, and vice versa. For a country where I've met so many sharp and politically sophisticated folks, I think it's a bummer they have one binary choice when it comes to their national vote.
Within each party is where you find the subdivisions. Democrats have within them Socialists to classical liberals" and the Republicans have MAGA to traditional liberals. It's fluid though.
It's within the primary elections where you see the most interesting elections at times. Sometimes you'll get a challenger in a district where it makes sense, like when AOC took on an established classical liberal and flipped it, pushing the representation leftward while still being Democrat.
I don't think this is why. Look at the number of Bernie supporters. I think what's really going on is that the right-wing media has a strategy of shifting the Overton window by calling liberals "left" and those same liberals have little problem with that because they consider themselves left, not knowing any better.
It's not just the word liberal, which means something different for most Americans than its meaning in other countries. In Australia, the Liberal party is the conservatives who are allied with Murdoch.
The word "neoliberal" is also a problem.
It is used negatively and aimed at a broad swath of center-left to center-right.
But in other countries, the people called "neoliberals" would be understood to be conservatives.
Instead of using "n*liberals", we should be calling them "conservatives". Larry Summers, for example, is a conservative.
We should start using descriptive names. It is hard to confuse just who are the "money decides and confers authority" party from the "not everything is about money" party to "god speaks to me and says this is how you do it" party. Also those donkeys and elephants are pretty ambiguous as well. How about snakes and scorpions? Isn't that more descriptive?
This is a completely mistaken use of the word "neoliberal." Neoliberalism refers to a worldview that thinks in terms of market-oriented policies, global trade, privatization, etc. You thinking it has something to do with wokism or OK symbols is a perfect example of the word being used incorrectly.
Correct. I don’t understand why you’re being down-voted for stating something that’s so incontrovertible. Neo-liberalism is an economic philosophy that aims to turn back the clock on Keynesian (or New Deal for the other side of the Atlantic) policies and return to “laissez-faire” capitalism of the 19th Century.
It’s orthogonal to social liberalism (or “wokism”), i.e., one could be an advocate of privatisation of state services and just as easily be socially conservative or socially liberal.
Thanks for replying, some of the assertions didn't seem right now I see where you come from. I didn't classify ADL as neo-con. The Wapo article does say there are a few thousand far right soldiers, which I think is well known, it certainly isn't 20% of its army. The last quote is post on HN, which I dont think is proof of any official neo-con policy.
First, "neoliberals" aren't supporting any of this.
Second, your facts are wrong. The ok sign stuff was some very sensitive people pushed by foreign propaganda. Militias aren't the army. That's why they're militias. Like calling the Wagner Group the Russian Army.
