Ditto. I've always called myself a classic, FDR type liberal. Government that works for the people, levels playing fields. I've long been a fan of Bill Maher, as he espouses the ideals that I, and apparently you, have. And in the last year the right wingers have latched onto him thinking he's gone all rightie, not understanding what classical liberalism is about. One of my best friends is a Trumper and the overlap on many topics is frightening, but perfectly valid.
@@frequentlycynical642 "a classic, FDR type liberal" FDR was most certainly NOT a liberal, at least not in the classical sense of the word. FDR was a left leaning progressive just like his hero Wilson. FDR, like Wilson, saw the federal government as the be-all end-all for everything. Where Wilson started the expansion of government, FDR vastly expanded it into every aspect of life and society. After the SCOTUS declared several of FDR's alphabet agencies to be unconstitutional, he coerced the SCOTUS by threatening to pack the court by expansion. Other than Wilson, FDR was arguably the least liberal president in the history of the US.
"The most compassionate people," my ass. If they were compassionate, they wouldn't insist that others spend on the liberals' charity of choice, which is the government. Compassionate people would just give what THEY had and be content with that. Spending other people's money is not compassion. It's theft.
@@MagnifiedGiant OP's problem is less that he is dismissing other human beings as much as he thinks paying a proportion of his income to taxes is just as bad as being homeless, poor, sick, disabled et ceterea. Whether that is because he equates paying taxes to being destitute or because the indignity of paying for taxes is an indignity that he suffers specifically, I don't know.
@@JamesR1986 Harrymills is correct though. Conservatives give their own money to charity where Liberals largely take other peoples money to do their charity.
Liberals should support liberty and limited government, and understand how the two are inextricably linked. So "liberals" who support nanny government are not liberal, by definition.
Left liberals like myself believe that a lack of capital in the grand scheme of things is far more restricted to human freedoms then a functioning democratic government.
They already have a title for those people and they are called "Libertarian." It depends on your very definition of "limited government." Now I am all for liberty; however, there needs to be some regulation. I was at one time considered a "progressive" (like Greenwald and Taibi) until the movement got completely wrapped up in this whole cultural "woke" ideology, and it took precedence over what the real issue is-- and that is the undoing of the legacy of the policies founded by both TR and FDR by the Reagonomics ("greed is good") policies that are still in effect today and thus have created this huge wealth gap (and created this new Robber Baron Redux class) that is only becoming more outrageous by the decade and have completely corrupted both sides of our government. The only reason to really create a "nanny state" would be if the government took over healthcare--but to be honest, the government does not care about the welfare of it's people to even consider creating a public option for healthcare... let alone, care about the "health" of people. If they did, it's because they got some huge incentive from the food conglomerates and/or pharmaceutical companies. Both parties are too busy fighting wars which are not ours to fight; therefore, creating even bigger immigration crisis than before, while lining the pockets of the Robber Barons of the industrial-military complex. Nonetheless, we have enough income to not only take in the millions of "asylum seekers" at our borders (as well as flying them in, too); however, when it comes to the taxpayers, who sweated and built this country off their labor for years (or even decades)--they can't even get a leg up. Meanwhile, corporations are doing everything to consolidate their wealth by creating huge conglomerates and monopolies, and intentionally seeking out to destroy potential competitors, while keeping the worker's wages as low as possible. Another way to do this is to saturate the labor market with low-skilled workers--while taxpaying Americans cannot find a job to support themselves and/or their families and home/rent prices and inflation growing substantially higher than wages.
There are two axis to the political spectrum. Right and Left are the X axis. Liberty and Authoritarian are on the Y axis. A Left Authoritarian is a Progressive and a Right Authoritarian is a Conservative. A Left pro-Liberty is called a Liberal and a Right pro-Liberty is called a Libertarian.
I think this "left", "right" "center" is BS. Unless you address a specific subject, the label is meaningless. If you mention something like "Defense Spending", "Abortion", etc., individuals attitudes can change with each subject. Why do Americans have to be 100% one way or the other, or in "middle ground" on everything.
YESSSSS! I try to explain this to people all the time. And I have seen that older generations and people who don't pay attention to politics have a harder time understanding the difference.
Progressivism: Immanentize the Eschaton "A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive" --“The Doctrine of Fascism” by Benito Mussolini
Sargon is correct about this topic. The left and progressivism are outgrowths of liberalism. You can make the case that they are the inevitable conclusion of liberalism, merely the full expression of liberalism.
I think that the argument that they are inevitable conclusion of liberalism has been proven because liberalism has never stopped short of progressivism and leftism.
That this has been isolated from the larger show I can address this in specific. When the word Liberal is used (capital for distinction) it referring to European Socialists and the American academic/ruling class that has always looked to Europe for guidance. This---> 'liberal"
We all have opinions of society and culture, this is fine. What has happened is the ultra powerful after years and years waiting patiently have determined it was time to take over and pursue their own agendas at an accelerated pace. At this point they do not even care if it is obvious or not. The effects of this is manipulation and change to secure and continue the outcomes set in front. The problem for them has been Trump and his high profile supporters, the independent media and Americans. Their mistakes have become apparent to just about everyone now. You can label and invent all the political names you want. It has become and will be more irrelevant as time goes on. This is why you are seeing the mutation of the old social and political verbiage. Hopefully you understand.
Two other words that have new “definitions” Phobia (the FEAR of something) I am not transphobic, I just can’t relate. The other is Racist. Which used to be defined as HATING ALL PEOPLE OF THE SAME RACE, because of their race. I selectively dislike certain individuals, but not ALL people who happen to share a common ancestry.
The Bible mentions in the final days “In the last days, right will be wrong, and wrong shall be right” That time is now Whether you believe in the Bible or not
But this stuff is just a sign that Western societies failing. This has happened before and it might happen again. Roman and Greek societies probably felt the same way you do.
It's quite easy (if you're not an American) Left is progressive. Right is conservative. --------------------------------^-------------------------------- On a completely separate line... illiberal .... liberal liberal liberal .... illiberal --------------------------------^-------------------------------- You run into problems when you start believing that liberal is the opposite of conservative. In America, that WAS once the case, when, in Bill Maher's childhood era, and a little more recent, the organized religious and ultra-conservative order reigned supreme. The push-back against the obvious illiberal oppression was legit. But now? Cut it out. Liberal Progressives and liberal Conservatives need to stand united against the intolerant and illiberal far-left and far-right. (Actually, the alt-left and traditional far-right) Welcome to the broad, and reasonably tolerant, Center.
people seem to have made a definition or an assessment 10, 20 30 years ago...but as time has passed, they have not updated their views. so they are 'stuck' in an outdated version of 'reality'. it's a shame. 🙏🏽
@@frequentlycynical642 Before you run off, i was thinking I could save some money and get a lend of your mein kampf instead of buying it. Surely if you think it's bad, you must have read it?
He's right. I'm a Liberal and today I'm called "Far-Right".
Ditto. I've always called myself a classic, FDR type liberal. Government that works for the people, levels playing fields. I've long been a fan of Bill Maher, as he espouses the ideals that I, and apparently you, have. And in the last year the right wingers have latched onto him thinking he's gone all rightie, not understanding what classical liberalism is about.
One of my best friends is a Trumper and the overlap on many topics is frightening, but perfectly valid.
@@frequentlycynical642 you're a good dude
@@frequentlycynical642 "a classic, FDR type liberal"
FDR was most certainly NOT a liberal, at least not in the classical sense of the word. FDR was a left leaning progressive just like his hero Wilson. FDR, like Wilson, saw the federal government as the be-all end-all for everything. Where Wilson started the expansion of government, FDR vastly expanded it into every aspect of life and society. After the SCOTUS declared several of FDR's alphabet agencies to be unconstitutional, he coerced the SCOTUS by threatening to pack the court by expansion. Other than Wilson, FDR was arguably the least liberal president in the history of the US.
@@jcopp2031 Got it.
I was called a bleeding heart liberal in 2016 and now I’m a right wing shill without changing a damned thing. That’s fine.
These distinctions are vital, thank you for shining a light on this
So sick of conservatives calling authortians "liberals." Mark Dice, looking at you. Stop it!
They're wrong
Thank you for this. Nice to hear a calm, rational, talk about these distinctions.
"The most compassionate people," my ass. If they were compassionate, they wouldn't insist that others spend on the liberals' charity of choice, which is the government. Compassionate people would just give what THEY had and be content with that. Spending other people's money is not compassion. It's theft.
Did you ever think your dismissal of other human beings has an effect on your ability to spread your message?
@@Dahveed1982 How did they "dismiss other human beings"? By disagreeing?
@@MagnifiedGiant OP's problem is less that he is dismissing other human beings as much as he thinks paying a proportion of his income to taxes is just as bad as being homeless, poor, sick, disabled et ceterea.
Whether that is because he equates paying taxes to being destitute or because the indignity of paying for taxes is an indignity that he suffers specifically, I don't know.
@@JamesR1986 Harrymills is correct though. Conservatives give their own money to charity where Liberals largely take other peoples money to do their charity.
It's pretty easy to be generous with someone else's money.
Liberals should support liberty and limited government, and understand how the two are inextricably linked. So "liberals" who support nanny government are not liberal, by definition.
“should”, but they don’t. Their hearts are in the right place but they don’t understand. We should educate them instead of condemning them.
Left liberals like myself believe that a lack of capital in the grand scheme of things is far more restricted to human freedoms then a functioning democratic government.
You couldn't be more wrong by either history or definition. FDR, JFK, and LBJ weren't liberal? Gimme a break.
They already have a title for those people and they are called "Libertarian." It depends on your very definition of "limited government." Now I am all for liberty; however, there needs to be some regulation. I was at one time considered a "progressive" (like Greenwald and Taibi) until the movement got completely wrapped up in this whole cultural "woke" ideology, and it took precedence over what the real issue is-- and that is the undoing of the legacy of the policies founded by both TR and FDR by the Reagonomics ("greed is good") policies that are still in effect today and thus have created this huge wealth gap (and created this new Robber Baron Redux class) that is only becoming more outrageous by the decade and have completely corrupted both sides of our government.
The only reason to really create a "nanny state" would be if the government took over healthcare--but to be honest, the government does not care about the welfare of it's people to even consider creating a public option for healthcare... let alone, care about the "health" of people. If they did, it's because they got some huge incentive from the food conglomerates and/or pharmaceutical companies.
Both parties are too busy fighting wars which are not ours to fight; therefore, creating even bigger immigration crisis than before, while lining the pockets of the Robber Barons of the industrial-military complex. Nonetheless, we have enough income to not only take in the millions of "asylum seekers" at our borders (as well as flying them in, too); however, when it comes to the taxpayers, who sweated and built this country off their labor for years (or even decades)--they can't even get a leg up. Meanwhile, corporations are doing everything to consolidate their wealth by creating huge conglomerates and monopolies, and intentionally seeking out to destroy potential competitors, while keeping the worker's wages as low as possible. Another way to do this is to saturate the labor market with low-skilled workers--while taxpaying Americans cannot find a job to support themselves and/or their families and home/rent prices and inflation growing substantially higher than wages.
@@LoreleiBeatrix Well said. You see the big picture. One can be liberal and progressive w/o being woke. Like Bill Maher. And me.
There are two axis to the political spectrum. Right and Left are the X axis. Liberty and Authoritarian are on the Y axis. A Left Authoritarian is a Progressive and a Right Authoritarian is a Conservative. A Left pro-Liberty is called a Liberal and a Right pro-Liberty is called a Libertarian.
Minimal. They all want to undermine traditional society. It's just various degrees of politeness.
Zuby plus Shellenberger deserves more views!
I think this "left", "right" "center" is BS. Unless you address a specific subject, the label is meaningless. If you mention something like "Defense Spending", "Abortion", etc., individuals attitudes can change with each subject. Why do Americans have to be 100% one way or the other, or in "middle ground" on everything.
YESSSSS! I try to explain this to people all the time. And I have seen that older generations and people who don't pay attention to politics have a harder time understanding the difference.
Yeah the difference is that they start out dumb and get dumber and more crazier the more you go to the left.
Progressivism: Immanentize the Eschaton
"A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive" --“The Doctrine of Fascism” by Benito Mussolini
I'm gonna feel the need to reference the political compass to accompany this when I watch it aren't I...
The three telos model explains this perfectly
Sargon is correct about this topic. The left and progressivism are outgrowths of liberalism. You can make the case that they are the inevitable conclusion of liberalism, merely the full expression of liberalism.
I think that the argument that they are inevitable conclusion of liberalism has been proven because liberalism has never stopped short of progressivism and leftism.
That this has been isolated from the larger show I can address this in specific. When the word Liberal is used (capital for distinction) it referring to European Socialists and the American academic/ruling class that has always looked to Europe for guidance. This---> 'liberal"
Inversion is the name of the game.
whats a libertarian ? Left Right , Liberal , Conservative ?
A libertarian can be left-wing or right-wing
Just different stages of the same disease. Don’t fool yourself. It’s all the same but just different moments of it’s evolution.
We all have opinions of society and culture, this is fine. What has happened is the ultra powerful after years and years waiting patiently have determined it was time to take over and pursue their own agendas at an accelerated pace. At this point they do not even care if it is obvious or not. The effects of this is manipulation and change to secure and continue the outcomes set in front. The problem for them has been Trump and his high profile supporters, the independent media and Americans. Their mistakes have become apparent to just about everyone now. You can label and invent all the political names you want. It has become and will be more irrelevant as time goes on. This is why you are seeing the mutation of the old social and political verbiage. Hopefully you understand.
Two other words that have new “definitions” Phobia (the FEAR of something) I am not transphobic, I just can’t relate. The other is Racist. Which used to be defined as HATING ALL PEOPLE OF THE SAME RACE, because of their race. I selectively dislike certain individuals, but not ALL people who happen to share a common ancestry.
The Bible mentions in the final days
“In the last days, right will be wrong, and wrong shall be right”
That time is now
Whether you believe in the Bible or not
But this stuff is just a sign that Western societies failing. This has happened before and it might happen again. Roman and Greek societies probably felt the same way you do.
#20
#21
It's quite easy (if you're not an American)
Left is progressive. Right is conservative.
--------------------------------^--------------------------------
On a completely separate line...
illiberal .... liberal liberal liberal .... illiberal
--------------------------------^--------------------------------
You run into problems when you start believing that liberal is the opposite of conservative.
In America, that WAS once the case, when, in Bill Maher's childhood era, and a little more recent, the organized religious and ultra-conservative order reigned supreme. The push-back against the obvious illiberal oppression was legit.
But now? Cut it out.
Liberal Progressives and liberal Conservatives need to stand united against the intolerant and illiberal far-left and far-right. (Actually, the alt-left and traditional far-right)
Welcome to the broad, and reasonably tolerant, Center.
This classic liberal can live with this.
#18
There is no difference. It all winds up in the same place.
This is a midwit gathering.
people seem to have made a definition or an assessment 10, 20 30 years ago...but as time has passed, they have not updated their views. so they are 'stuck' in an outdated version of 'reality'. it's a shame. 🙏🏽
There is no difference. They are damned
These are all just different terms for subversion via Judaism
Nah you just hate jews. Go away.
Aren't your copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion getting a big worn out?
@@frequentlycynical642 I notice how you didn't call me wrong :)
What are those? I'll be sure to pick them up, thanks for the recommendation
@@24tommy109 I'm more mature than to indulge in an on line argument with an ideologue.
@@frequentlycynical642 Before you run off, i was thinking I could save some money and get a lend of your mein kampf instead of buying it. Surely if you think it's bad, you must have read it?