[IntelCore]

In my country, the word "liberal" is basically opposed to "conservatism", and has nothing to do with economics. Liberal means that you favor freedom, progress and fairness, while conservative means you favor more tradition, tribalism and loyalty. As a result, conservatives are typically more religious, racist, militaristic and family-oriented than liberals, who are more science-oriented and more open to new ideas.

Some people in the US use these terms pretty much the same way as I use it ( e.g Jonathan Haidt in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... _mind.html )

However, many Americans seem to associate these terms with economic views: liberal with government regulation and spending, Keynes etc while conservatives are associated with free market economics, Mises, small government etc.

How come these terms have become associated with economic ideas in the US? Is a liberal (in the original sense) american much more likely to oppose free markets, or american conservatives (in the original sense) much more likely to distrust government? This seems pretty paradoxical to me.
Also, could we all agree to go back to using Liberal and Conservative in the traditional way?

[U184]

It refers to liberty for the individual, in regards to government control, economics, etc.

As wiki puts it:

Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberal thought, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality and that providing for the general welfare exceeds the legitimate role of government

Most consider the issue in America, to be different than outside of the US and have termed it Modern liberalism.
It is described as:

Liberalism wagers that a state ... can be strong but constrained—strong because constrained ... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance the opportunity and personal dignity of minorities and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society.

You may also find that here on the forum, the term liberal as defined above, is also projected onto all Western Liberal stances. It is often a generic term used as a slant, or outright derogatory accusation/insult from our more colorful fascist/socialist/communist/totalitaristic/authoritaristic/marxist/leninist/stalinist type posters.

It is also common for the above to happen, even if you are not a Liberal, as not being one of the above is enough to slap you in that box.

[IntelCore]

That's very interesting! Any idea when and why the term "liberal" went away from referring to individual freedom and instead towards the economic left (in the US)?

[foxdemon]

You may also find that here on the forum, the term liberal as defined above, is also projected onto all Western Liberal stances. It is often a generic term used as a slant, or outright derogatory accusation/insult from our more colorful fascist/socialist/communist/totalitaristic/authoritaristic/marxist/leninist/stalinist type posters.

Not everyone on this forum is a liberal.

In my country, the word "liberal" is basically opposed to "conservatism", and has nothing to do with economics. Liberal means that you favor freedom, progress and fairness, while conservative means you favor more tradition, tribalism and loyalty. As a result, conservatives are typically more religious, racist, militaristic and family-oriented than liberals, who are more science-oriented and more open to new ideas.

The term liberal has several meanings. In the broadest sense it means 'free' or 'without constraint'. (eg: he liberally sprinkled salt over his meal).

It also has a specific meaning in an academic context, ie 'a liberal mind'. This is used to refer to someone who has an open mind and is prepared to consider two sides of an argument. They would be more concerned with how to think rather than what to think.


Then there is the political theory context, which is what you are talking about. KFlint has done a good job of explaining the American perspective. I think the confusion is between the political ideology and the academic idea. Certainly the two are related as political freedom, as espoused by liberals, is very similar to intellectual freedom. But outside of the university, liberal becomes a ideology to organize society rather than just a way of thinking.


American liberalism is of note as it is almost a universal ideology for them. Everything is related back to liberalism. So their conservatives are liberal as are their social progressives. In fact modern liberalism in America can be described as anarcho-liberalism versus totalitarian-liberalism.



What is called 'libertarianism' is actually anarchy.

But in American everything has to be seen through a liberal lens. This ideology emphasizes small government to the point that government vanishes. That's why I say it is anarchy. No matter how one looks at it, liberalism only makes sense in the context of a state and citizens. Liberalism without a state is anarchy. But Americans can't use that term. The political school of thought must be expressed in a liberal paradigm.




The other is 'social liberalism'.

I call it totalitarian liberalism, as it is an attempt to relate liberalism to every aspect of each citizen's life. It is a total way of life, and hence totalitarian. Rawls for example tried to develop a political philosophy to ascertain who's rights took precedence. See how this contrasts with classical liberalism which emphasis the relationship between state and citizen in terms of rights. The modern version, social liberalism, the state plays the role of adjudicator over who's rights take precedence. In this way the state comes to play an intrusive role in each citizen's personal life. Of course this is the complete opposite of what the thinkers that created classical liberalism were trying to achieve. The real name for this system is socialism.



So liberalism is very special to Americans. It is the ultimate basis of all their political thought. Everything must be seen to have evolved from it. Today we see a remarkable phenomena of anarchy and socialism being justified in reference to the 18th/19th century ideology of liberalism and misrepresented as developments of that defunct school of political belief.

[U184]

Not everyone on this forum is a liberal.

Do you think I suggested otherwise?

[IntelCore]

I see! This confusion is rather annoying as it makes political debates and cross-country comparison difficult and largely semantics. Hardly no young educated person in Northen Europe would call themselves conservative. Calling yourself conservative here amounts to claiming you are close-minded or deeply religious. At first, it seemed absurd to hear american republicans use the term "liberal" as a pejorative. I think this is a part of the reason why so many Europeans see so many Americans as morons, in reality they use the same term differently - but with enough overlap to cause confusion.

I think the American constitution itself is liberal, and so were many of the founding fathers. It is no wonder that people who want to conserve the liberal tradition call themselves conservatives.

Libertarians are struggling to deal with the various meanings of liberals - especially because liberal has acquired this big government label. It makes no sense to equate the "academic" liberal-conservative scale with the economic left-right scale. Why would a person with a liberal mindset automatically believe in socialism, or in absolutely minimal government? The two are unrelated. In Norway, the main liberal (Not libertarian, not liberalist) party (Venstre) is neither economically leftist or right, but center. However, both the youth branch of the conservative party (Høyre, center-right), the socialist party (SV) and several others are proud to call themselves liberal in the "academic", "Jonathan Haidt" use of the term still common over here. None of them struggle with the connotations used by republicans to bash "liberals".

[foxdemon]

^
I think you have got the idea.

The culture of political theory is not the same between America and Europe. Some might argue the American tradition is just a sample of the European body of political thought, transplanted into a new region and left to grow in it's own direction. But it starts with Liberalism as it's foundation.

Another point to remember when thinking about the Americans is that many of the early founders were Puritans. That event has left a tradition of religious fundamentalism that might seem a little strange to the average contemporary European.

[Soix]

However, many Americans seem to associate these terms with economic views: liberal with government regulation and spending, Keynes etc while conservatives are associated with free market economics, Mises, small government etc.

I imagine most of the self described American "liberals" have never read Keynes and the same with American "conservatives" and Mises.

Is a liberal (in the original sense) american much more likely to oppose free markets, or american conservatives (in the original sense) much more likely to distrust government?

A liberal distrusts government and therefore entrusts individuals and favors free markets. A conservative, on the other hand, distrusts individuals and therefore entrusts government (authority) and favors economic favoritism/interventionism. In America, however, it is the other way round.

[The Immortal Goon]

It's also worth pointing out that the conservative tradition in the United States comes from the British conservative tradition that started with Edmund Burke. This is different from the British themselves that will usually go back to Richard Hooker as starting their modern conception of conservatism.

Counter this with continental Europe's conservatism starting with Joseph de Maistre, who is counter-enlightenment and so reactionary virtually no conservative in the US would call him a conservative a dad start to see more problems with these terms.

The latter form of conservatism is largely why, outside of Britain, the thought of having the label "conservative" is difficult to accept by many. But the British themselves use an older tradition where the US sort of dips its tow into British uses of the term midstream.

[quetzalcoatl]

This alleged 'distinction': i.e., that liberals are uniquely distinguished by favoring economic regulation, is a notion that will never die, despite its patent falsehood. (Some lies are too useful to give up.) Conservatives (in the US sense) are quite aggressive in promoting government regulation when it is perceived as advantageous to their favored interests. Look at the telecom industry, for example, to see a classic example of industries protected against competition by government. Or consider the overwhelming support given to road infrastructure versus rails - this is a crucial factor in the long haul trucking industry's success. Conservatives hate rail (a fairly recent development...they loved it in the nineteenth century) so they pretend that "market forces" have pushed rail into desuetude, when it is in fact part of their own carefully crafted legislative agenda.

The recent flash-in-the-pan American trend of 'libertarians' invading the conservative movement is a bait and switch operation heavily funded by the same economic interests that supported traditional GOP regulated markets. Good marketing, nothing more.

[Rich]

This is different from the British themselves that will usually go back to Richard Hooker as starting their modern conception of conservatism.

It seems some Conservatives have converted to Catholocism recently. Essentially admitting the banal, puerility of American Conservatism. Hooker could be said to have had the last laugh.

[Joe Liberty]

This alleged 'distinction': i.e., that liberals are uniquely distinguished by favoring economic regulation, is a notion that will never die, despite its patent falsehood.

They aren't uniquely distinguished in that way, but they do embrace it. You're right, American conservatives love regulation too, just to a different degree and/or in different areas.

The recent flash-in-the-pan American trend of 'libertarians' invading the conservative movement is a bait and switch operation heavily funded by the same economic interests that supported traditional GOP regulated markets. Good marketing, nothing more.

It didn't start as a heavily-funded facade for the GOP. The GOP saw the writing on the wall and co-opted it so they could either subsume it or destroy it. Between that and the constant character assassination from the American left, it's been diluted but the fact that it still won't die is testament to its true grass-roots origins.

Now, some of the GOP front-runners (like Christie) are openly bad-mouthing it. It will be interesting to see what kind of influence the Tea Party movement exerts in the next election cycle.

[Someone5]

In my country, the word "liberal" is basically opposed to "conservatism",

It's an historical curiosity stemming from the fact that the United States has strong two-party system; neither party promotes a course of policy hugely different from the other. Since both parties are fundamentally capitalist and fundamentally support government control over business, the need for a veneer of division is obvious. Hence "liberals" and "conservatives" who both support essentially the same form of government and the same form of economic structure--capitalism, regulated by a profit-friendly government.

Neither terms means in the United States what it has typically meant everywhere else.

Some people in the US use these terms pretty much the same way as I use it ( e.g Jonathan Haidt in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... _mind.html )

Typically, people who are politically educated use the customary international meanings (among others with a similar background). The American liberal/conservative thing is for the public.

How come these terms have become associated with economic ideas in the US?

It's not like American voters ask questions about the form of government that ought to be practiced, or deep political questions about the future. It's just a horse race between two people with broadly similar capitalist agendas. What else would people talk about, except the most narrow and arcane divisions between the two sets of positions. That's why it's some huge major political issue when one team thinks health care benefits ought to be paid before tax and another thinks it ought to be paid after tax--neither fundamentally dispute the idea that you ought to be paying for it yourself.

Well, these sorts of narrow divisions need terms to identify them (otherwise how would people get divided into teams?). Hence "liberal" and "conservative".

American politicians also use the term "socialism" incorrectly--that's kind of to be expected.

Also, could we all agree to go back to using Liberal and Conservative in the traditional way?

No, probably not.

[uggabugga]

There is an aspect of evolution in political society. The liberal ideas of today become the conservative platforms of tomorrow. It has always been this way. Those who doubt please find and read the Republican convention speeches of 1956 and compare them to what the Tea Party people are saying today. To be liberal is to look to the future while conservatism values yesterday.

[sonic rain]

Economics has always been a part of liberalism. Classical liberalism has lazzez-faire free markets, social liberalism has keynesian ideals, while neoliberalism's economics is based off of the chicago school. Granted, liberalism isn't all economics, a big part of liberalism is its rejection of pre enlightenment things and values, such as "The Divine Right of Kings", church authority in the state, traditionalism, etc.