Differences between the words "liberal" "leftist" and "progressive"?
December 26, 2024 4:53 PM Subscribe
I see and hear these words all the time, and I'm never sure where (or if) journalists and bloggers and anchorman draw a line between one and other. I consider these words more or less interchangeable, but i dont have a sophisticated political vocabulary nor any historical perspective on how the meaning of these words may have changed over time. How do you guys define these words, and what distinctions, if any, do see between them?
It really depends on who’s talking, since people at different points on the political spectrum use these words in different ways.
To my ears (as someone somewhere on the left end of that spectrum), “liberal” means “basically in favor of the status quo, but would like people to be nicer,” “leftist” means “explicitly anti-capitalist.” “Progressive” is a little fuzzy, but implies “in favor of reforms that would make liberals uncomfortable.”
posted by adamrice at 5:17 PM on December 26 [12 favorites]
To my ears (as someone somewhere on the left end of that spectrum), “liberal” means “basically in favor of the status quo, but would like people to be nicer,” “leftist” means “explicitly anti-capitalist.” “Progressive” is a little fuzzy, but implies “in favor of reforms that would make liberals uncomfortable.”
posted by adamrice at 5:17 PM on December 26 [12 favorites]
Best answer: There is no objective definition that will satisfy you, all three of these terms are used differently by different ideologies to signal friend/enemy distinctions.
posted by so fucking future at 5:18 PM on December 26 [23 favorites]
posted by so fucking future at 5:18 PM on December 26 [23 favorites]
Note: this is a US-oriented answer.
The answer to this changes based on perspective, though I think it's agreed across the board that "leftist" is the leftmost position.
To liberals who self-identify as such, leftists are too extreme.
To leftists, liberals are self-identified Democrats, which is defined by leftists as centrists (basically pre-Reagan Republicans) - it's an insult more or less, but does indicate they are not as terrible as self-identified modern-day Republicans but still likely to be pretty problematic and highly invested in certain aspects of status quo.
Leftists in the US align most closely to European "green" and worker-oriented parties. US leftists consider modern-day UK Labour to be about as washed out and centrist as US Democrats. (I don't have time to keep up with UK politics anymore and it's too depressing, but I think UK leftists feel the same.)
I think both are more likely to use "progressive" to refer to policies or attitudes or groups more than individuals, and would be a term of favor for a liberal and more like "damning with faint praise" from leftists. I think? I don't hear that word as much anymore.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:19 PM on December 26 [6 favorites]
The answer to this changes based on perspective, though I think it's agreed across the board that "leftist" is the leftmost position.
To liberals who self-identify as such, leftists are too extreme.
To leftists, liberals are self-identified Democrats, which is defined by leftists as centrists (basically pre-Reagan Republicans) - it's an insult more or less, but does indicate they are not as terrible as self-identified modern-day Republicans but still likely to be pretty problematic and highly invested in certain aspects of status quo.
Leftists in the US align most closely to European "green" and worker-oriented parties. US leftists consider modern-day UK Labour to be about as washed out and centrist as US Democrats. (I don't have time to keep up with UK politics anymore and it's too depressing, but I think UK leftists feel the same.)
I think both are more likely to use "progressive" to refer to policies or attitudes or groups more than individuals, and would be a term of favor for a liberal and more like "damning with faint praise" from leftists. I think? I don't hear that word as much anymore.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:19 PM on December 26 [6 favorites]
Best answer: "Leftists" I consider broadly to be anti-capitalists: socialists, communists, anarchists who are not anarcho-capitalists, etc.
When I was young, I only encountered "liberal" as meaning "the opposite of conservative," so like many people I was confused when I got online and encountered "liberal" as a pejorative from the left: i.e., people who were broadly pro-capitalism and, even if Democrats, tended to largely agree with Republicans on free trade and austerity politics, though they would quibble about many specifics.
"Progressive" has its own baggage because it comes from an early 20th century political movement that advocated for a lot of reforms I would consider positive (though in a lot of cases not going nearly far enough) - like education reforms and reforms of conditions in prisons - but also was pro-eugenics, often racist, and pro-policing other people's behavior in ways that now seem (to me at least) rather over-reaching and paternalistic. It feels like the current usage of the term has drifted away from that historical usage and mostly describes the people within the Democratic party who are not socialist but who are most open to taxing the rich more and spending more money on social programs. Elizabeth Warren, for example.
These definitions are purely in terms of USA politics; things are, of course, different elsewhere.
posted by Jeanne at 5:19 PM on December 26 [12 favorites]
When I was young, I only encountered "liberal" as meaning "the opposite of conservative," so like many people I was confused when I got online and encountered "liberal" as a pejorative from the left: i.e., people who were broadly pro-capitalism and, even if Democrats, tended to largely agree with Republicans on free trade and austerity politics, though they would quibble about many specifics.
"Progressive" has its own baggage because it comes from an early 20th century political movement that advocated for a lot of reforms I would consider positive (though in a lot of cases not going nearly far enough) - like education reforms and reforms of conditions in prisons - but also was pro-eugenics, often racist, and pro-policing other people's behavior in ways that now seem (to me at least) rather over-reaching and paternalistic. It feels like the current usage of the term has drifted away from that historical usage and mostly describes the people within the Democratic party who are not socialist but who are most open to taxing the rich more and spending more money on social programs. Elizabeth Warren, for example.
These definitions are purely in terms of USA politics; things are, of course, different elsewhere.
posted by Jeanne at 5:19 PM on December 26 [12 favorites]
For me, Phil Ochs's "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" is the definitive take on what "liberal" means from a "leftist" perspective (in an American context).
posted by jshttnbm at 5:27 PM on December 26 [10 favorites]
posted by jshttnbm at 5:27 PM on December 26 [10 favorites]
First, I've noticed that a lot of publications - including NPR and the NYTimes, are often sloppy with this terms - so, you can't be blamed for being confused.
Liberals, historically, tend to be somewhat left-of-center. So, they aren't Centrists. I'd say Obama is clearly a Liberal today. He's not radical, but he's certainly to the left of Manchin or other more Centrist Dems.
"Leftist" can refer to a number of different ideologies on the far-left-end of the political spectrum. What unites leftist is generally the view that we can just wait around for progress to happen through the normative political channels. Some leftists might even boycott voting, but many will vote and even volunteer for liberal Dems, but will also see work like organizing, protesting, etc. being key to political change. The anthem "Baby, I'm an Anarchist!" sums up the leftist disdain/frustration with liberals pretty well - even over 20 years later.
I agree that "progressive" is a better descriptive of policies than people. There is the Progressive caucus in Congress, but the members of Congress in that caucus represent something of a range. I'd say that generally, people who call themselves "Progressive" likely agree with Bernie/Warren that the US needs big structural change, not incremental change. And are more likely to focus mainly on the "working class" - whereas liberals will talk more about the "middle class."
posted by coffeecat at 5:33 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
Liberals, historically, tend to be somewhat left-of-center. So, they aren't Centrists. I'd say Obama is clearly a Liberal today. He's not radical, but he's certainly to the left of Manchin or other more Centrist Dems.
"Leftist" can refer to a number of different ideologies on the far-left-end of the political spectrum. What unites leftist is generally the view that we can just wait around for progress to happen through the normative political channels. Some leftists might even boycott voting, but many will vote and even volunteer for liberal Dems, but will also see work like organizing, protesting, etc. being key to political change. The anthem "Baby, I'm an Anarchist!" sums up the leftist disdain/frustration with liberals pretty well - even over 20 years later.
I agree that "progressive" is a better descriptive of policies than people. There is the Progressive caucus in Congress, but the members of Congress in that caucus represent something of a range. I'd say that generally, people who call themselves "Progressive" likely agree with Bernie/Warren that the US needs big structural change, not incremental change. And are more likely to focus mainly on the "working class" - whereas liberals will talk more about the "middle class."
posted by coffeecat at 5:33 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
The distinction probably only exists to folks who identify themselves within these identities. But I agree with:
Liberal: Clinton Democrat (either Clinton)
Progressive: Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Educated, centrist by Western European standards.
Leftist: umbrella term that could include the above but more often refers to people who are on the left but may lack a clear plan for how to achieve larger aims and socialists who do have a clear plan such as social democrats (who want to elect a socialist government), communists (who want to seize the government), and anarchists (who want to abolish it).
posted by latkes at 6:10 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
Liberal: Clinton Democrat (either Clinton)
Progressive: Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Educated, centrist by Western European standards.
Leftist: umbrella term that could include the above but more often refers to people who are on the left but may lack a clear plan for how to achieve larger aims and socialists who do have a clear plan such as social democrats (who want to elect a socialist government), communists (who want to seize the government), and anarchists (who want to abolish it).
posted by latkes at 6:10 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
FWIW, the only people I hear using the term “leftist” these days are right-wingers who use it to infer “communist” or “socialist” (which, y’know, mean the same thing to most americans.) It evokes the old red-scare era.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:13 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 7:13 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
Another complexity for "liberal" is that it originally meant something much closer to modern day libertarianism or laissez faire capitalism and is still sometimes used to mean that. Usually for that use-case people will append "classical" (as in "classical liberal") to avoid confusion.
posted by yaj at 8:00 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
posted by yaj at 8:00 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]
Best answer: A liberal is someone who, with a little elbow grease and push and pull, thinks that there is no problem with the American system that cannot be resolved by the American system, be it elections and the supreme court or the press and enlightened debate in higher education. A progressive is a fuzzier term that straddles the two, but is generally more suspicious of the established institutions and thinks we may need to sometimes work outside of them, in strikes and sit-ins and demonstrations, for example, to fix problems that cannot be easily resolved through institutional channels.
Leftists believe that our systems of power were crafted by and for elite exploitation and control. We can sometimes work within them, giving a talk at a university or writing an op-ed, or beseech them, having a strike at a workplace asking the boss for better wages, but that fundamentally, these are means, often weak means, to a more comprehensive goal: overthrowing the institutions of existing power relations and having a revolution that introduces emancipatory developments and new ways of interacting that are designed for the benefit of all and not just the ruling class. We keep the universities, but they're free; newspapers no longer have billionaire publishers to push questionable endorsements; workers dictate hours, safety, wages, and staffing instead of negotiating with the latest scions of inherited wealth.
posted by history is a weapon at 8:03 PM on December 26 [13 favorites]
Leftists believe that our systems of power were crafted by and for elite exploitation and control. We can sometimes work within them, giving a talk at a university or writing an op-ed, or beseech them, having a strike at a workplace asking the boss for better wages, but that fundamentally, these are means, often weak means, to a more comprehensive goal: overthrowing the institutions of existing power relations and having a revolution that introduces emancipatory developments and new ways of interacting that are designed for the benefit of all and not just the ruling class. We keep the universities, but they're free; newspapers no longer have billionaire publishers to push questionable endorsements; workers dictate hours, safety, wages, and staffing instead of negotiating with the latest scions of inherited wealth.
posted by history is a weapon at 8:03 PM on December 26 [13 favorites]
Also neoliberal refers to an ideology and economic and political program of privatization of public resources and services, industrial deregulation and shrinking of government that was embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike throughout the 80s and 90s, culminating in the housing market crash of the early 2000s.
posted by latkes at 8:08 PM on December 26 [3 favorites]
posted by latkes at 8:08 PM on December 26 [3 favorites]
A liberal is a conservative who has not yet been a victim of a crime and thinks in theory we should have empathy for everyone until they are the wronged person. A progressive is someone looking to be proactive instituting changes to the system that would be more liberal than conservative. A leftist is someone who wants to blow up the system and replace it with a more socialist system (Weather Underground in the 60s).
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:55 PM on December 26
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:55 PM on December 26
As you can see, everyone is performing a sort of "moral conjugation" on these terms to reframe them in their own political framework. The term has lost all meaning without a lot of set-up and context, due to becoming its own antonym depending on who's using it.
"Liberal" used to mean someone who wanted a loosening of restrictions on something, which could have been economic (laissez-faire captialism), social (progressive identity politics), or political (increased suffrage, maybe? I dunno). So you get it used by everyone to mean "Group X has too much control over group Y, and we should loosen that grip."
The trouble is that one side is saying "Billionaires have too much control over folks who work for a living.", another is saying "Megachurches have too much control over the social lives of LGBTQIA+ folks.", and another is saying "Undergraduates at Oberlin who Say Things have too much control over Corporations and Megachurch Preachers and Angry White People With Guns." And every single one of these gets described as "liberal" in some frameworks, because they're all describing their argument via the same solution: removing restrictions (such as legal restrictions on gender-affirming care, or union-breaking laws, or factory regulations designed to prevent injury or death).
Fundamentally everyone who calls themselves a "liberal" believes that the problem is we're doing too much in the wrong direction, and we should cut back and just let people sort themselves out. It's just that some folks want their LGBTQIA+ communities to be able to have some breathing room, and some want their megacorporation to.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:59 AM on December 27 [4 favorites]
"Liberal" used to mean someone who wanted a loosening of restrictions on something, which could have been economic (laissez-faire captialism), social (progressive identity politics), or political (increased suffrage, maybe? I dunno). So you get it used by everyone to mean "Group X has too much control over group Y, and we should loosen that grip."
The trouble is that one side is saying "Billionaires have too much control over folks who work for a living.", another is saying "Megachurches have too much control over the social lives of LGBTQIA+ folks.", and another is saying "Undergraduates at Oberlin who Say Things have too much control over Corporations and Megachurch Preachers and Angry White People With Guns." And every single one of these gets described as "liberal" in some frameworks, because they're all describing their argument via the same solution: removing restrictions (such as legal restrictions on gender-affirming care, or union-breaking laws, or factory regulations designed to prevent injury or death).
Fundamentally everyone who calls themselves a "liberal" believes that the problem is we're doing too much in the wrong direction, and we should cut back and just let people sort themselves out. It's just that some folks want their LGBTQIA+ communities to be able to have some breathing room, and some want their megacorporation to.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:59 AM on December 27 [4 favorites]
From outside the USA, I read them all as slurs -- some reclaimed as a badge of honour -- and gave to check who's using it before decoding what they mean.
Liberals in UK parliament used to be a contrast to Conservatives -- and old-ebough distinction it crossed the Atlantic to have bearing in the USA -- so "liberal" has connotations of permissiveness and escape from governance. From the right wing of politics, they're shameless rejectors of the idea you should conserve tradition or that you should pay respect to the people history has deemed your betters, while from the left, they're careless and let go of the protective structure ls of state institutions. For a liberal, tradition and regulation shouldn't get in the way -- and for a libertine nothing should be forbidden. (Neo-liberals emerged after the Great Depression and the New Deal showed that state interventions rather than private capital could drive workers and create GDP -- so the state shouldn't intervene in a 'free market' by building bridges, railways, schools and education institutions but definitely should intervene defending the existence of.the marketplace by making weapons -- but not protecting participants on each side of a marketplace transaction.)
Progress became an important idea with the industrial revolution and the c.20 Modern-ism, and it was used to bolster the case for investments in new technology as well as doing horrible things to people (forced sterilisation, testing pharmaceuticals, observing how diseases, er, progress). Progressives aim to be meritocratic and/or rational, but there's no universal merit score and nobody has perfect complete information to make a rational choice of trade-off for least harm or maximal good. Regulation shouldn't stand in their way, nor tradition, in service of learning new things, building better structures or disrupting ... state of being.
The left side of politics has been slurred since Communist revolution threatened Europe and the USA after WWI. The politicians and media owners are threatened by collective power of the workers they employ, so dissuading people from collective action and slurring communal activity was a core part of their messaging, which also benefit from having an enemy in the USSR during the Cold War. A 'leftist' is left of wherever you are.
There's a bunch of great ideas on the left side of products: about community and collaboration and social safety nets, pooled insurance costs benefitting from both economy of scale of people paying in as well as sharing the risk across the whole population ... but it's not the subject of this Ask.
posted by k3ninho at 4:42 AM on December 27 [2 favorites]
Liberals in UK parliament used to be a contrast to Conservatives -- and old-ebough distinction it crossed the Atlantic to have bearing in the USA -- so "liberal" has connotations of permissiveness and escape from governance. From the right wing of politics, they're shameless rejectors of the idea you should conserve tradition or that you should pay respect to the people history has deemed your betters, while from the left, they're careless and let go of the protective structure ls of state institutions. For a liberal, tradition and regulation shouldn't get in the way -- and for a libertine nothing should be forbidden. (Neo-liberals emerged after the Great Depression and the New Deal showed that state interventions rather than private capital could drive workers and create GDP -- so the state shouldn't intervene in a 'free market' by building bridges, railways, schools and education institutions but definitely should intervene defending the existence of.the marketplace by making weapons -- but not protecting participants on each side of a marketplace transaction.)
Progress became an important idea with the industrial revolution and the c.20 Modern-ism, and it was used to bolster the case for investments in new technology as well as doing horrible things to people (forced sterilisation, testing pharmaceuticals, observing how diseases, er, progress). Progressives aim to be meritocratic and/or rational, but there's no universal merit score and nobody has perfect complete information to make a rational choice of trade-off for least harm or maximal good. Regulation shouldn't stand in their way, nor tradition, in service of learning new things, building better structures or disrupting ... state of being.
The left side of politics has been slurred since Communist revolution threatened Europe and the USA after WWI. The politicians and media owners are threatened by collective power of the workers they employ, so dissuading people from collective action and slurring communal activity was a core part of their messaging, which also benefit from having an enemy in the USSR during the Cold War. A 'leftist' is left of wherever you are.
There's a bunch of great ideas on the left side of products: about community and collaboration and social safety nets, pooled insurance costs benefitting from both economy of scale of people paying in as well as sharing the risk across the whole population ... but it's not the subject of this Ask.
posted by k3ninho at 4:42 AM on December 27 [2 favorites]
Liberals tend to conceive of agency as originating in individuals, and propagating through networks (contrast with conservatives, who tend to conceive of agency originating in authority and propagating through hierarchy). This is why, for example, when liberals lose an election they cry “how can everyone be so stupid?!” Contrast this with when conservatives lose an election, it is down to some vast conspiracy within the government.
Progressives are liberals who focus their agency on the betterment of others, the less fortunate, downtrodden, etc. (or who bemoan their lack of agency, saying “woe to the downtrodden”)
Leftists are liberals who tend to want to build structures within liberal networks, in the hope that a collective will be able to perform heavier lifts within society (think: unions, cooperatives, maker-spaces, open source projects, etc.)
posted by jimfl at 7:02 AM on December 27
Progressives are liberals who focus their agency on the betterment of others, the less fortunate, downtrodden, etc. (or who bemoan their lack of agency, saying “woe to the downtrodden”)
Leftists are liberals who tend to want to build structures within liberal networks, in the hope that a collective will be able to perform heavier lifts within society (think: unions, cooperatives, maker-spaces, open source projects, etc.)
posted by jimfl at 7:02 AM on December 27
Best answer: I agree with a lot of the answers here -- I'm a self-identified leftist (anarchocommunist) and if I had to sum up the difference between liberals and leftists in one sentence I'd say that liberals value our current institutions and leftists don't. "Progressive" is a little squishier but I think of them probably as more radical liberals? They believe in a major overhaul of how things are implemented but don't support a radical restructuring of society. Basically, I'd say liberals think the status quo is largely okay but they should be in charge and we should be polite to everyone including the more respectable and respectful members of marginalized communities (but not necessarily those they view as vulgar or violent weirdos on either side), progressives don't believe in the current status quo but do believe things can be fixed, and leftists do not believe the current system is redeemable and think we need something completely different. Others may well disagree, and there are plenty of arguments among leftists about what "liberal" and "leftist" mean so you're not alone in your confusion. I hope this is helpful!
posted by an octopus IRL at 7:45 AM on December 27 [4 favorites]
posted by an octopus IRL at 7:45 AM on December 27 [4 favorites]
Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good.
posted by Eikonaut at 7:52 AM on December 27 [2 favorites]
posted by Eikonaut at 7:52 AM on December 27 [2 favorites]
From outside the USA, I read them all as slurs
As someone from outside the USA, I don't. In a UK context, 'liberal' is a difficult word because it's been co-opted by a major political party so, as with 'conservative', you have to qualify what you mean. Unfortunately the US-style definition of 'liberal' is starting to become entrenched here because of US media, so it's losing its usefulness as a description of a moral and political framework.
I don't use any of those words, although I'm sure people would use them to describe me.
posted by pipeski at 9:25 AM on December 27
As someone from outside the USA, I don't. In a UK context, 'liberal' is a difficult word because it's been co-opted by a major political party so, as with 'conservative', you have to qualify what you mean. Unfortunately the US-style definition of 'liberal' is starting to become entrenched here because of US media, so it's losing its usefulness as a description of a moral and political framework.
I don't use any of those words, although I'm sure people would use them to describe me.
posted by pipeski at 9:25 AM on December 27
In the U.S., when used in good faith to try to describe people rather than heap calumny upon them:
"Liberal" - believes in the amounts and kinds of redistribution and civil rights the major Democratic Party officeholders currently support, or maybe a tad more in the times/places when moderate Democrats are in the ascendance.
"Leftist" - believes in significantly more redistribution than liberals, and more of at least some kinds of civil rights than liberals, tends to a bit of hostility / uneasiness of alliance with liberals, and has at least some openness to being called / calling themselves socialists or Marxists.
"Progressive" - distinctly two flavors so you have to ask:
-- one: largely the same policy objectives as leftists, but less hostility to liberals and less willingness to be expressly associated with socialism/Marxism
-- the other: believes in significantly more civil rights than liberals, but is at or at most slightly to the left of liberals on redistribution
posted by MattD at 9:43 AM on December 27 [1 favorite]
"Liberal" - believes in the amounts and kinds of redistribution and civil rights the major Democratic Party officeholders currently support, or maybe a tad more in the times/places when moderate Democrats are in the ascendance.
"Leftist" - believes in significantly more redistribution than liberals, and more of at least some kinds of civil rights than liberals, tends to a bit of hostility / uneasiness of alliance with liberals, and has at least some openness to being called / calling themselves socialists or Marxists.
"Progressive" - distinctly two flavors so you have to ask:
-- one: largely the same policy objectives as leftists, but less hostility to liberals and less willingness to be expressly associated with socialism/Marxism
-- the other: believes in significantly more civil rights than liberals, but is at or at most slightly to the left of liberals on redistribution
posted by MattD at 9:43 AM on December 27 [1 favorite]
Great discussion here.
Whenever somebody is curious about the Right and the Left I recommend beginning your study with the Political Spectrum, and various attempts to illustrate it. You might start with the one at Information is Beautiful (note that's the US version where Left is Blue, now; they also have the traditional, internationally colored version where the Left is Red).
posted by Rash at 10:15 AM on December 27
Whenever somebody is curious about the Right and the Left I recommend beginning your study with the Political Spectrum, and various attempts to illustrate it. You might start with the one at Information is Beautiful (note that's the US version where Left is Blue, now; they also have the traditional, internationally colored version where the Left is Red).
posted by Rash at 10:15 AM on December 27
You're not sure, and most people aren't sure. Language only works as well as the common knowledge and understanding of the speaker/writer and the hearer/listener. End result: you always have to clarify what nuanced meaning you intend, unless you're communicating with people you know have a similar background to yours.
posted by amtho at 10:25 AM on December 27 [1 favorite]
posted by amtho at 10:25 AM on December 27 [1 favorite]
Nobody has yet explained that 'liberal' means support for a very specific collection of policies and programs. Liberals dominated politics in the United States from 1932 until 1980. In that time, they accomplished the following programs -- together, these define what it means to be a liberal in the United States:
- A social safety net for all: Social Security, Medicare ...
- Public works on a national scale: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Grand Coulee Dam etc. (water and power), the interstate highway system (transportation}, etc.
- Civil rights for minorities: racial integration of schools, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, ...
- Federal support for science, technology, and medicine: the NSF, NIH, NASA and the space programs, ARPA and the Internet, etc...
- Federal support for higher education through grants and contracts to universities and scholarships for students
- US domination of world politics through alliances, foreign aid, military aid, and outright military intervention and invasion (World War II, Korean War, NATO, Cold War, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.)
- No government support or endorsement for religion, no prayer in schools ...
- Rights of suspects and defendants, limitations on police power, Miranda rights ...
- Paying for all of this through a progressive tax system that heavily taxes the rich and corporations
All of these comprise the classic liberalism of the Unitied States from the 1930s through the 1970s. It was the mainstream establishment politics of both major parties. It was not just Democrats -- rich Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney were liberals.
The establishment regarded conservatives to be cranky reactionaries on the wrong side of history. When the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964, liberal Republicans predicted disaster. They were right. Lyndon Johnson won by a landlslide.
When an American over age 60 - a boomer or older -- says "liberal", this is what they mean - the mainstream establishment politics of their grandparents, parents, and their own childhood and youth.
What people who came of age after 1980 mean by "liberal", I can't say. They never lived n a liberal administration.
posted by JonJacky at 7:42 PM on December 27 [5 favorites]
- A social safety net for all: Social Security, Medicare ...
- Public works on a national scale: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Grand Coulee Dam etc. (water and power), the interstate highway system (transportation}, etc.
- Civil rights for minorities: racial integration of schools, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, ...
- Federal support for science, technology, and medicine: the NSF, NIH, NASA and the space programs, ARPA and the Internet, etc...
- Federal support for higher education through grants and contracts to universities and scholarships for students
- US domination of world politics through alliances, foreign aid, military aid, and outright military intervention and invasion (World War II, Korean War, NATO, Cold War, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.)
- No government support or endorsement for religion, no prayer in schools ...
- Rights of suspects and defendants, limitations on police power, Miranda rights ...
- Paying for all of this through a progressive tax system that heavily taxes the rich and corporations
All of these comprise the classic liberalism of the Unitied States from the 1930s through the 1970s. It was the mainstream establishment politics of both major parties. It was not just Democrats -- rich Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney were liberals.
The establishment regarded conservatives to be cranky reactionaries on the wrong side of history. When the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964, liberal Republicans predicted disaster. They were right. Lyndon Johnson won by a landlslide.
When an American over age 60 - a boomer or older -- says "liberal", this is what they mean - the mainstream establishment politics of their grandparents, parents, and their own childhood and youth.
What people who came of age after 1980 mean by "liberal", I can't say. They never lived n a liberal administration.
posted by JonJacky at 7:42 PM on December 27 [5 favorites]
PS - another important group of liberal programs:
- Government regulation of finance to prevent fraud and promote stability, and government regulation of industry to promote safety and confidence: the FDA, FAA, EPA, etc ...
posted by JonJacky at 7:58 PM on December 27 [1 favorite]
- Government regulation of finance to prevent fraud and promote stability, and government regulation of industry to promote safety and confidence: the FDA, FAA, EPA, etc ...
posted by JonJacky at 7:58 PM on December 27 [1 favorite]
"Liberal" has been largely drained of meaning due to its use as a slur, but it's inescapable in one context: opinion polls, and therefore pundritry in general. Polls ask if people are conservative, moderate, and liberal; here's a recent Gallup poll. Liberal in these contexts is obviously the most left-leaning option.
The key to understanding US politics is that liberalism— the leftmost position— is presently about 25% of the electorate, and it used to be worse. On economic issues it's just half of the Democratic Party. Very likely (I can't find figures on this), the leftmost half are the people who voted for Sanders or Warren as opposed to Hillary Clinton or Biden.
Leftists like to use "liberal" in precisely the opposite sense: to describe the other half of the Democratic party, the people who tell the pollsters they are moderates or conservatives.
Responding to this confusion, "liberals" are now more likely to call themselves "progressives." Or of course "socialists" or "leftists." I don't think it's very useful to make big theoretical pronouncements over the divisions in that leftmost half of the Democrats. We would all like to reverse the disaster of plutocracy.
posted by zompist at 8:34 PM on December 27 [2 favorites]
The key to understanding US politics is that liberalism— the leftmost position— is presently about 25% of the electorate, and it used to be worse. On economic issues it's just half of the Democratic Party. Very likely (I can't find figures on this), the leftmost half are the people who voted for Sanders or Warren as opposed to Hillary Clinton or Biden.
Leftists like to use "liberal" in precisely the opposite sense: to describe the other half of the Democratic party, the people who tell the pollsters they are moderates or conservatives.
Responding to this confusion, "liberals" are now more likely to call themselves "progressives." Or of course "socialists" or "leftists." I don't think it's very useful to make big theoretical pronouncements over the divisions in that leftmost half of the Democrats. We would all like to reverse the disaster of plutocracy.
posted by zompist at 8:34 PM on December 27 [2 favorites]
Many of the definitions of "liberal" in this thread are leftist definitions. They are not necessarily what self-professed liberals would describe as their own views.
The last several comments above strike me as the most accurate.
People who call themselves liberal tend to be GenX or older, and they use the term to essentially refer to New Deal and Great Society style liberalism, as JonJacky very cogently explained above. A good social safety net; vigorous regulation of capitalism, and possibly a mix of capitalism and socialism; progressive investments in infrastructure, education, public health, etc.; strong support for civil rights and individual civil liberties, etc. They would not define themselves as basically believing in the status quo, or that "people just need to be nice to each other". Those are condescending leftist stereotypes of liberals, not liberals' own views. Liberals tend to understand that all the things they value (1) were hard-won over a long period of time, and (2) are under attack, and have been significantly eroded, by the right.
People who call themselves leftists tend to be GenX or younger -- and notably, are the only people on the political spectrum who place great value on the leftist/liberal distinction. Everyone else lumps liberals and leftists together... but leftists view their differences with liberals as existentially crucial. Liberals, to them, are naive fools who enable the perpetuation of injustice thru their cluelessness. Leftists spend an extraordinary amount of time and energy denouncing liberals -- you'll find that in leftist circles, the stupidity and even the perceived evil of liberals is one of the perennial favorite topics of conversation.
For the record, I don't use either term to describe myself.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:45 AM on December 28 [5 favorites]
The last several comments above strike me as the most accurate.
People who call themselves liberal tend to be GenX or older, and they use the term to essentially refer to New Deal and Great Society style liberalism, as JonJacky very cogently explained above. A good social safety net; vigorous regulation of capitalism, and possibly a mix of capitalism and socialism; progressive investments in infrastructure, education, public health, etc.; strong support for civil rights and individual civil liberties, etc. They would not define themselves as basically believing in the status quo, or that "people just need to be nice to each other". Those are condescending leftist stereotypes of liberals, not liberals' own views. Liberals tend to understand that all the things they value (1) were hard-won over a long period of time, and (2) are under attack, and have been significantly eroded, by the right.
People who call themselves leftists tend to be GenX or younger -- and notably, are the only people on the political spectrum who place great value on the leftist/liberal distinction. Everyone else lumps liberals and leftists together... but leftists view their differences with liberals as existentially crucial. Liberals, to them, are naive fools who enable the perpetuation of injustice thru their cluelessness. Leftists spend an extraordinary amount of time and energy denouncing liberals -- you'll find that in leftist circles, the stupidity and even the perceived evil of liberals is one of the perennial favorite topics of conversation.
For the record, I don't use either term to describe myself.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:45 AM on December 28 [5 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
More And More Democrats Embrace The 'Progressive' Label [npr], also describes:
“frustration with establishment Democrats like Obama — the sense that they were insufficiently leftist and insufficiently bold in their policymaking —”
posted by HearHere at 5:15 PM on December 26 [2 favorites]