20
‘Liberal’ has become a term of derision in US politics – the historical reasons are complicated
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
20 points (91.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
3262 readers
778 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
We take a lot of liberal values for granted these days, which ironically makes liberalism an easy target. We owe human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, and secularism to liberalism, not to socialism.
Socialist regimes sadly has a mixed record of guaranteeing these rights. I would rather live in a liberal non-socialist society where human rights are respected and I can assemble and protest, than in an illiberal socialist society where I am silenced and human rights are not respected. But again, I think liberal ideals can only be sustained under socialism, and any meaningful socialism can only be sustained when paired with liberal ideals.
Right now human rights and fundamental freedoms are under heavy attack, and I think we need to unite behind them. It's weird to me that people are so hesitant to recognize their liberal heritage. The attacks on liberalism from both sides mean that we lack a lowest common denominator to rally behind - we don't have a shared ideological basis on which we can state that freedom of speech and human rights needs to be protected.
But of course, neoliberalism destroys everything it touches, and I guess it touched upon liberalism as well. I can see why people have their reservations. Private property rights taken to the extreme—as it has been in the west—is fucking dangerous, and it's often associated with liberalism. To me it's more symptomatic of the feudalist shit liberalism was trying to fix in the first place.
Sure, but you can share individual values with an ideology without agreeing with it as a whole.
Oh boy, wait until you here about the record of liberal regimes when it comes to guaranteeing these rights...
Ok. What exactly is your point? I would rather live under feudalism and be healthy than live under liberalism and be quadriplegic. Does that make me a feudalist?
Some of them can, like freedom of expression, and and some of them can't, like enclosure of the means of production by private capital.
Right now? Are you under the impression there was a time when they weren't? The difference is that now the labour aristocrats of the global North are starting to feel the squeeze.
You mean the gilded age? The industrial revolution? The triangle trade? Liberal heritage in practice is pretty fucking grim when it comes to human rights, and only really improved when global socialist movements got strong enough to force concessions in the early twentieth century. (And is getting worse again now that that socialist movement has been broken)
Sure we do, socialism.
Neoliberalism represents the natural and inevitable progression of capitalism, profits will be maximized at the expense of workers, and the squeeze will only increase as the marginal rate is profit decreases. Neoliberalism is just a return to the natural, pre-twentieth century state of capitalism after a period of disruption.
Ok, but it's not. Neoliberalism is only similar to feudalism in that it's exploitative, but nothing more.
Dude, relax.
The very concept of human rights is a product of liberalism as a political philosophy. You seem to support values championed by liberal philosophers, while also thinking that liberalism is basically satan. Pick a side.
I'm anti capitalist, I would consider myself a socialist but not a liberalist, but I'm nonetheless at least as influenced by liberal thought as I am by socialist thought. If you can't square that that's worrying, but I've spent enough time here.
No
What an absolutely asinine and reductive interpretation of what I said.
Then you are not a liberal, by definition
Yes, obviously; socialist thought is directly descended from liberal thought, it is impossible to be a socialist without being influenced by liberal thought.
What a bad faith little worm comment.
Are you referring to the regime of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, or Netherlands?
What do you think?
I think you're making am assumption based on a one or two liberal countries and extrapolating that to a larger bunch of countries where your assumption doesn't hold.
Prior to the twentieth century, are you willing to stand by the human rights record of all (but one or two) liberal countries? Are you even willing to do that today?
No.
Are you? And why is the question relevant?
Ok. Have fun playing dumb, but I'm not going to keep responding to it
Haha, that looks funny in the eyes of anyone who understands the subject.
But okay. I believe that regardless of how many questions I pose in order to find out if your case makes any semblance of sense, I won't find out whether it does.
I'll just assume you are clueless without noticing it yourself. That's okay.