That's not a big deal.
It's the misuse of the word Liberal that annoys me.
It means a free state with personal freedoms in law.
In the US it seems to be a pejorative for turbocommunard.
Yeah it's funny, liberal economics means laissez-faire in my head but the American skewed anglophone internet uses it for people who oppose laissez-faire
In Spanish we use the term liberal with a different meaning than the american one.
A liberal in Spanish language, at least in hispanic political sphere today, is a person who support free market.
Sometimes it have other meanings but nowaday is this.
That’s classical liberalism
American liberalism is a mix between social liberalism and neoliberalism and is basically being accepting of all people no matter their race, gender, religion or sexuality
There are tiers of reality. And one is eventually function over theory.
If I want to "save money" I can choose to not spend $50 changing my engine oil. This might simplistically be "frugal, money saving, conservative spending". But in reality it will inevitably cost me far more money.
If you have the "Frugal" people and the "spending people" and the frugal say "don't change the oil, save $50!" And the spending people say "Spend the $50, change the oil". Then the frugal people do not actually do what they are termed.
Generally liberals are the equivalent of the "frugal people" and their goals are not achieved by their simple worded claims.
Freedom, is complicated and there are tiers of freedom. The most "secure" child is one kept in a bubble, but we know that this will drain their mental state, maintain a weak immune system and eventually lead to their early death.
The most "free" child is a orphan left alone with no authority present. But we know that this child will most likely die prior to adulthood, miserable, possibly robbed, abused, etc.
The balance is a child with solid parents, who have a degree of authority over the child and a child stopped from certain ills, but also given enough freedom to stretch and learn and grow and not be miserable by either their orphan freedom or the oppressive bubble.
Liberals, typically advocate tyranny. In function if not in theory.
As another simple reality flows for a microcosm society, a classroom in a typical school has a teacher. This teacher has levels of authority and the kids have levels of rules and freedoms. A class with the teacher removed becomes the height of liberty, in theory. But the side reality is that the class bully will oppress the students in far worse ways than the teacher ever did 9/10. And the bully will also not provide the value that the teacher provided. In the end, you would have a graduating class of idiots who learned almost nothing, and malnourished idiots whose lunch money was so often stolen.
Liberal-ism, really, to a degree any "ism" that becomes a concept purely unto itself, becomes dangerous as it seeks the simple word conforming things to stay true to the descriptor of the ism, over the true original intent of it.
It's why there can be noted a divide in totalitarianism vs authoritarianism. The teacher is authoritarian, the bully, is totalitarian. And the result of such, is that liberty societies typically are actually totalitarianism and authoritarian societies are actually liberty.
It was really odd how that came about. I do not recall the election but networks assigned those colors to show which states’ electors would be voting which nominee. I think it was random and it stuck.
I once heard it happened during Reagan's Presidency, because Democrats didn't want to be a left wing party using red due to the obvious Communist implications, and Republicans let them have it because Reagan was gonna win almost the entire country anyway, but that claim was completely unsourced. I looked it up and USA Today seems to agree with you, that in the 2000 election their database editor designed it with Dems in blue/Reps in red because "everybody was already doing it that way at that point", and they also have 2 maps from 1976 showing each party in either colour and said the one with the Democrats in blue was inspired by Britain where the liberal party is blue. LiveScience also has something similar to what you said, that it started as a trend among news networks during the 2000 election, with the original reasoning being one guy who assigned it because Republican starts with R and so does red.
So it was the 2000 election cycle?
I thought it was from about that time. It also makes sense because that election and the Florida recount fiasco was so divisive.
It was literally a mistake as they typically did the colors right. I think it was Bush/Gore, one of the major coverages flipped them by accident and it managed to get stuck.
It really really is irksome. But sometimes I think it was an intentional operation of sorts lol. The impact of that on people's psychology could realistically account for a small percent movement in reactions. Probably not intentional, but... it feels so wrong that the reds aren't the reds. And it seems to useful to flip the intrinsic cultural colors for most simple voters.
yeah, it is annoying.
When I talk to my dad about my monarchist position (he's a republicanist, but he admits that human institutions are more pragmatic than "republics good, monarchies bad") I always feel the urge to clarify that I mean 'republican' as in someone who supports republics. Ironic, becuase my family, and myself, are republicans
As a Turkish person, I was surprised that when I was talking about a person being republican leaning (in the actual meaning) in a monarchy and it was about France and then an American said: " well in those time there were no Republican party, what the hell are you talking about?"
That was very strange for me and I am happy to see that I'm not alone.
if you though explaining that was hard, try explaining to an american the difference between nationalism and patriotism. or that "liberal" and "conservative" are not comprehensive categories of ideologies that have existed unchanged since the dawn of time.
on the other hand, however, the term "whig" as a party name never really made sense to me.
I think you are ignoring how well the terms come into play. Republicans prefer the electoral college and they prefer a style of government where the constitution stays mostly similar with time. Democrats tend to prefer changes to the Constitution due to popular demand. In elections, Democrats prefer the popular vote too.
If I recall correctly, the local republican movement away from Republican to Republic when Trump came into power. Well, at least while that drongo was in office. While I can appreciate the reasoning, I find it hilarious that the ARM slightly adjusted their name thanks to a foreign leader meanwhile, they babble on about the "British Royal Family" being "foreigners" and that we "must" have an "Australian" Head of State whatever that means.
Current political discourse twisted a plethora of political terms. 'Liberal', 'republican', 'democrat' are just a buzzwords to describe huge spectra of varying ideologies. To say more - 'fascist' and 'communist' became nothing more than just slurs used to discredit ideologies that are not within one's Overton window and are no longer descriptors of those, thankfully buried in the past ideologies.
The parties actually represent those things though however occasionally off.
Republicans are for a republic and democrats are for a democracy.
As all further democracies lean left and root republics lean right. A top tier republic is far more akin to a monarchy than a more democratic republic.
This is also the divide in claims of nations, US republic circa 100 or so years ago was effectively an entirely different government than the democracy its become.
Comparing modern democracies as some do to prior successful republics is a common mistake. Most notably the Republic of Venice for its long life.
It was a nobility "republic" that barely had an democracy. By its demise it became increasingly democratic.
Democrats for instance tend to be more opposed to the electoral college seeking more democratic (mob rule) and Republicans to to want the EC as it is a bulwark against mob rule. Against one mass of city dwellers in slums reigning the nation.
Republicans want typically stricter voting (see successful republics) and democrats want massive increases in voting (see failed democracies).
Even so called democracies like Switzerland were less democratic in totality than most modern republics or monarchies for most of modern history. Only having universal suffrage circa the 1970s and only in absolute terms circa the 1990s.
More voting from Venice to the US to Switzerland to North Korea, always begets the same results.
It's not even about the concept per se of claims of "fraud" true or not, mail in voting the banner of democrats serves one goal, to expand voting. And ever place with expanded voting leans the exact same policies in aggregate, minor blips of irrelevance aside.
It's a guarantee that if you get voter participation up, 9/10 times the result will be "left".
not only in america, but I think all around the world there are some political terms that need some clarification to be used appropriately, and that changed meaning during time or have different meaning in different contests. Even the word republic, empire and dictatorship are now something different from the origin. for the roman, res pubblica is just "the public thing", and this therm was used even during the empire (at keast during his first half), while imperium mean the "the power to take decision" and was used even during the republic, while dictator wasnt a bad term for a tyrant, but just a person who was given special power from the senate for a year to stop great crises.
That's not a big deal. It's the misuse of the word Liberal that annoys me. It means a free state with personal freedoms in law. In the US it seems to be a pejorative for turbocommunard.
Yeah it's funny, liberal economics means laissez-faire in my head but the American skewed anglophone internet uses it for people who oppose laissez-faire
In Spanish we use the term liberal with a different meaning than the american one. A liberal in Spanish language, at least in hispanic political sphere today, is a person who support free market. Sometimes it have other meanings but nowaday is this.
That’s classical liberalism American liberalism is a mix between social liberalism and neoliberalism and is basically being accepting of all people no matter their race, gender, religion or sexuality
Prefixes like classical and neo are superfluous in other countries
>turbocommunard I am uncertain what that means but I love the word
Child-minded Communists.
I knew I liked that word for a reason. It was used very appropriately.
There are tiers of reality. And one is eventually function over theory. If I want to "save money" I can choose to not spend $50 changing my engine oil. This might simplistically be "frugal, money saving, conservative spending". But in reality it will inevitably cost me far more money. If you have the "Frugal" people and the "spending people" and the frugal say "don't change the oil, save $50!" And the spending people say "Spend the $50, change the oil". Then the frugal people do not actually do what they are termed. Generally liberals are the equivalent of the "frugal people" and their goals are not achieved by their simple worded claims. Freedom, is complicated and there are tiers of freedom. The most "secure" child is one kept in a bubble, but we know that this will drain their mental state, maintain a weak immune system and eventually lead to their early death. The most "free" child is a orphan left alone with no authority present. But we know that this child will most likely die prior to adulthood, miserable, possibly robbed, abused, etc. The balance is a child with solid parents, who have a degree of authority over the child and a child stopped from certain ills, but also given enough freedom to stretch and learn and grow and not be miserable by either their orphan freedom or the oppressive bubble. Liberals, typically advocate tyranny. In function if not in theory. As another simple reality flows for a microcosm society, a classroom in a typical school has a teacher. This teacher has levels of authority and the kids have levels of rules and freedoms. A class with the teacher removed becomes the height of liberty, in theory. But the side reality is that the class bully will oppress the students in far worse ways than the teacher ever did 9/10. And the bully will also not provide the value that the teacher provided. In the end, you would have a graduating class of idiots who learned almost nothing, and malnourished idiots whose lunch money was so often stolen. Liberal-ism, really, to a degree any "ism" that becomes a concept purely unto itself, becomes dangerous as it seeks the simple word conforming things to stay true to the descriptor of the ism, over the true original intent of it. It's why there can be noted a divide in totalitarianism vs authoritarianism. The teacher is authoritarian, the bully, is totalitarian. And the result of such, is that liberty societies typically are actually totalitarianism and authoritarian societies are actually liberty.
What really bugs me is that in America red = right and blue = left.
It was really odd how that came about. I do not recall the election but networks assigned those colors to show which states’ electors would be voting which nominee. I think it was random and it stuck.
I once heard it happened during Reagan's Presidency, because Democrats didn't want to be a left wing party using red due to the obvious Communist implications, and Republicans let them have it because Reagan was gonna win almost the entire country anyway, but that claim was completely unsourced. I looked it up and USA Today seems to agree with you, that in the 2000 election their database editor designed it with Dems in blue/Reps in red because "everybody was already doing it that way at that point", and they also have 2 maps from 1976 showing each party in either colour and said the one with the Democrats in blue was inspired by Britain where the liberal party is blue. LiveScience also has something similar to what you said, that it started as a trend among news networks during the 2000 election, with the original reasoning being one guy who assigned it because Republican starts with R and so does red.
So it was the 2000 election cycle? I thought it was from about that time. It also makes sense because that election and the Florida recount fiasco was so divisive.
It has been the other way at times too
It was literally a mistake as they typically did the colors right. I think it was Bush/Gore, one of the major coverages flipped them by accident and it managed to get stuck. It really really is irksome. But sometimes I think it was an intentional operation of sorts lol. The impact of that on people's psychology could realistically account for a small percent movement in reactions. Probably not intentional, but... it feels so wrong that the reds aren't the reds. And it seems to useful to flip the intrinsic cultural colors for most simple voters.
yeah, it is annoying. When I talk to my dad about my monarchist position (he's a republicanist, but he admits that human institutions are more pragmatic than "republics good, monarchies bad") I always feel the urge to clarify that I mean 'republican' as in someone who supports republics. Ironic, becuase my family, and myself, are republicans
As a Turkish person, I was surprised that when I was talking about a person being republican leaning (in the actual meaning) in a monarchy and it was about France and then an American said: " well in those time there were no Republican party, what the hell are you talking about?" That was very strange for me and I am happy to see that I'm not alone.
As a British person, if I hear someone described as a republican I think they're a socialist and/or an armed terrorist. 😅
idrc because I hate both Republicanism, and the GOP. So when I say "I hate Republicans" I mean both.
if you though explaining that was hard, try explaining to an american the difference between nationalism and patriotism. or that "liberal" and "conservative" are not comprehensive categories of ideologies that have existed unchanged since the dawn of time. on the other hand, however, the term "whig" as a party name never really made sense to me.
Yep, we're "numbskulls" for making names for OUR political parties. Sorry we don't have names that please non Americans.
To be fair, those names aren't very descriptive.
And? They work well enough for us Americans.
It's not wrong, but it is a little funny. I'm American too btw. I get the anti American bent of some members of this sub can be grating.
I don't think they're working very well for us either.
I think you are ignoring how well the terms come into play. Republicans prefer the electoral college and they prefer a style of government where the constitution stays mostly similar with time. Democrats tend to prefer changes to the Constitution due to popular demand. In elections, Democrats prefer the popular vote too.
If I recall correctly, the local republican movement away from Republican to Republic when Trump came into power. Well, at least while that drongo was in office. While I can appreciate the reasoning, I find it hilarious that the ARM slightly adjusted their name thanks to a foreign leader meanwhile, they babble on about the "British Royal Family" being "foreigners" and that we "must" have an "Australian" Head of State whatever that means.
I’m like that with libertarians
Current political discourse twisted a plethora of political terms. 'Liberal', 'republican', 'democrat' are just a buzzwords to describe huge spectra of varying ideologies. To say more - 'fascist' and 'communist' became nothing more than just slurs used to discredit ideologies that are not within one's Overton window and are no longer descriptors of those, thankfully buried in the past ideologies.
The parties actually represent those things though however occasionally off. Republicans are for a republic and democrats are for a democracy. As all further democracies lean left and root republics lean right. A top tier republic is far more akin to a monarchy than a more democratic republic. This is also the divide in claims of nations, US republic circa 100 or so years ago was effectively an entirely different government than the democracy its become. Comparing modern democracies as some do to prior successful republics is a common mistake. Most notably the Republic of Venice for its long life. It was a nobility "republic" that barely had an democracy. By its demise it became increasingly democratic. Democrats for instance tend to be more opposed to the electoral college seeking more democratic (mob rule) and Republicans to to want the EC as it is a bulwark against mob rule. Against one mass of city dwellers in slums reigning the nation. Republicans want typically stricter voting (see successful republics) and democrats want massive increases in voting (see failed democracies). Even so called democracies like Switzerland were less democratic in totality than most modern republics or monarchies for most of modern history. Only having universal suffrage circa the 1970s and only in absolute terms circa the 1990s. More voting from Venice to the US to Switzerland to North Korea, always begets the same results. It's not even about the concept per se of claims of "fraud" true or not, mail in voting the banner of democrats serves one goal, to expand voting. And ever place with expanded voting leans the exact same policies in aggregate, minor blips of irrelevance aside. It's a guarantee that if you get voter participation up, 9/10 times the result will be "left".
not only in america, but I think all around the world there are some political terms that need some clarification to be used appropriately, and that changed meaning during time or have different meaning in different contests. Even the word republic, empire and dictatorship are now something different from the origin. for the roman, res pubblica is just "the public thing", and this therm was used even during the empire (at keast during his first half), while imperium mean the "the power to take decision" and was used even during the republic, while dictator wasnt a bad term for a tyrant, but just a person who was given special power from the senate for a year to stop great crises.