To be liberal is, by definition, to be broad-mined (or open-minded, if you will). Many of the greatest thinkers in history were so as a result of their open-mindedness. Upon self-assessment, I find that the things that I most need to change about myself are the result of close-minded ideas and behaviors. So from an intellectual standpoint, I fail to understand why liberal thinking is such a negative thing. Yet I often see some generalized group of people refered to as 'liberals', as if the term liberal is in itself deroratory and demeaning. Does anybody want to clue me in on this trend? To me, it appears to be equivilant to attacking somebody by calling them kind (or any other word that one tends to associate as a positive term). I just don't see the logic.

Technically, yeah. It is a shame most liberals do not conform to that definition.

Because liberals have traditionally been hypocrites in this nation in recent hostory, and the political meaning of the word has changed as a result.

They are not honest with themselves. They believe they are more open minded than they really are. The word has changed to reflect their actions...not what they believe themselves to be. That is why it is an insult.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If someone is not liberal, whether they claim to be or not, then they aren't liberals.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

If you want to change that, start calling yourself liberal proudly rather than apologetically. One of the big beefs I have with modern liberals is their wimpy rhetoric. It's one thing to be polite and understanding and to try to understand your opponents' points of view and even to defer from your ideological allies, but it is another to accept the insults and frames of your political opponents and become a perpetuator of stereotypes.
And as Sadistic said (I'm agreeing with you way too much lately too. I must be getting sick), it would be helpful to actually begin to embrace the liberal mentality of open mindedness, respect everyone's right to think, change your mind when your old mentality doesn't work, and never tow the party line. Remember, we care about the poor, not about welfare programs. If the Pubs' misguided bumblings somehow eliminate poverty, then we should be happy. And we should acknowledge that something needs to change with our programs.
It is like Thomas Sowell said. Sometimes "liberals" are really conservatives and "conservatives" are really liberal. It's really Brand X and Brand Y.
Part of being liberal that we have lost is trying new things. Instead we cling to the old.
The insult "liberal" does not reflect what being liberal really means, but more and more "liberals" make this label a reality and do the Pubs' work for them.
I once had a conservative political science prof who always made references to some great Democratic senator (whose name escapes me) who embodied the word liberal. I could not imagine him showing that respect toward any of today's major "liberals."

So once again I've been long-winded and you probably won't read all of my mutterings so I summarize:

If you don't want "liberal" to be an insult, be a liberal, call yourself a liberal, and don't be an insult to being liberal in your actions.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Don't worry about it, poletree. I have been called a liberal in a derogatory way, even though I'm not actually a liberal. In the 1990's, the word conservative was practically an epithet. To the minds of many, it meant that a person was like Pat Robertson. Now the country has moved to the right, so a liberal is seen as being "un-American". All of this is a sign of ignorant intolerance. I would also note that the terms liberal and conservative have changed in their meanings over the years.

The reason liberal is often seen as "unAmerican", is because many liberals have a tendency to sympathize with our enemies, or to focus solely on the negative aspects of our culture to the exclusion of the positive. Jane Fonda is probably the best example of this.

In short...it is liberals themselves that have made the word derogatory. The same will eventually happen to "progressive". You cant polish a turd.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

At least in Canada the word liberal never goes out of style, as the Liberal party has governed the country for 78 of the last 110 years.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Jane Fonda might be center-left now, but she was a full-fledged radical in the Vietnam era. She apologized for what she did, and while I still don't agree with her politics, I respect her for having the honesty to admit to her mistakes.

Jane Fonda was never just "left of center" heh heh. If she were any farther left, whe's have to change her last name to Marx.

I dont believe she really regrets it though.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

By world standards, the US is a conservative country, has been since WW2. American liberals in that period were, therefore, a fairly conservative crowd.
Completely different to earlier in the century with mass support for Sacco and Vanzetti campaigns, Debs etc.

But from the Reagan era the conservatives re-wrote the history books to a completely imagined script in a stunning reversal of truth; we were right to go to Vietnam, we should have stayed to 'win' even if it meant killing every living being there, the only thing that went wrong was that the liberal lefties undermined us at home, they hadnt the stomach for it and sold us out, and they polluted the media with lilly-livered liberal bias, downright unAmerican!

Now, none of these things actually happened, but it was a very appealing narrative to sell to a receptive American public. Many wanted to reassert their authority in a world where the pride was slightly stung by being humbled and sent running by an impoverished third world nation.

Its fun (and terrifying) to watch these wacky narratives take root in a culture where the population is in a receptive mood to accept them; look back at Rambo sulkily bemoaning whether 'they will let us win, this time', and you get the idea. At odds completely with what the US military and government said at the time but it IS the accepted truth for many Americans of the current generation. Accepting fiction as truth? What is going on here?

As time goes on the conservatives do a better and better job at 'selling' such narratives. Meanwhile what passes for American liberals these days scurry to hide from what shrivelled shards of liberal conviction remaining to them. Most lack the intellectual and moral rigour to resist the puritanical assault of the right against them as dissolute, traitors, perverts, corrupters of culture, dissipating wealth, sapping strength - need I go on here? The charges, though often veiled, will be familiar to anyone who has heard the rant of right wing US media; it is incessant, does not stray too much from the list given, and it is unrelenting.

Lacking conviction and moral courage (which the right has in abundance) American liberals flee in terror when confronted with charges against their patriotism, even from the most base and crass right wing sources.

The appeal to the patriotic reflex is a master stroke of the right, but of all of the effects of the right this has the most sinister corruptive consequence to the national culture. Downright dangerous, in my view.

American liberal? Mutually exclusive terms, or very near. The right own it (and now God is on their side too - God help us all!).

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."