Liberal- individualistic, live and let live. Focus on individuals interacting voluntarily. Progressive- individualistic on identity, collectivist on social issues towards progress away from traditional roles. Leftist- communitarian, focuses on labor activism and the relations between labor and capital.
"Why are liberals so unhappy" is such a biased question from a extremely online perspective. Most people who are liberal (and probably conservative as well) are just regular people doing regular things that aren't constantly whining online. The fact that he asked that question only shows how his world view is shaped by online comments.
@@sunnysangha2097There are stats indicating they are unhappier, though both sides are trending in that direction unfortunately. I guess the liberals would counterpoint with conservatives being less intelligent, neither point really matters since it varies by individual.
I've heard these defined several times but I can never remember the difference because so many people throw these terms around flippantly. It just becomes so confusing and I honestly don't see the point in remembering at this point when so few people actually use the terms properly.
It's a whole load of bullcrap. Liberal - someone who's main values are freedom and individuality. That makes them usually in oposition to Authoritarians, who try to increase the state's control over the population and usually makes them capitalists, as it's the current prevailing economical system in an non-interventionist environment. They are usually culturally slightly to the left of center, as they usually support the minority rights, but that support is more like a lack of will to infringe on them rather than actual push for more equal society. Leftist - a purely localized term, meaning anyone, who is on the left of the spectrum of the political debate in a given environment. The opposite here is a Right-winger. And a USA's leftist might very well find themselves considered right-wing in other, more left-leaning countries (like Norway). In the States it's very simple as there's a two party system, so realistically anyone who is vote-blue-no-matter-what (or further to the left than Dems o currently relevant talking points) is a leftist for USA's standards. Far-left is a type of leftist whose beliefs are radical enough not to be represented in the mainstream political discourse (The opposite is Far-right). In the States, that would for an example include people more left-leaning economically than Social-Democrats, as American political discourse has been heavily dominated by capitalist ideologies. Progressive - a term that is best explained as an opposition to Conservative and Traditionalist. Usually politically driven by a desire of change to the status quo on some issue and implement a solution that wasn't historically present in a given place. So in the USA that not only means cultural policies like trans acceptance, but can also include, for instance, nationalization of healthcare (which is an economic policy) and historically all the movements like abolitionists, workers rights, suffragettes and so on, were all proggressives. Conservative - someone who believes that the current status quo is the best we're gonna have and that changing it (in either direction) would be detrimental (either as a change of status quo, or due to the implementation cost aka "we don't need it, not worth it"). It is true that it's very close to liberals in the States (and realisticly - most Democrats are conservatives), because the right (most Republicans) are actually Traditionalist - someone who believes that we as the society implemented detrimental changes and we should seek to reverse them. Those are the guys who believe that they would rather live in the 50's or even further back, often oppose social legislation such as gay marriage or even in the more radical cases anti-apartheid.
Assuming Graham is right about Liberals being more unhappy, it’s probably because they tend to be more empathetic towards others and have a greater awareness of the awful things happening around the world. Those things can bear a lot of weight on an individual. Conservatives can have these traits as well but I believe it’s less common.
As far as being happy, mental problems hit all humans around 18-24 when your brain begins final education, like your college years. It happened to my brother with Schizophrenia freshman year of college so I looked into it online when that became available to learn that. Always thought it was fascinating. My brother is a completely different person from who I grew up with. Better now it's been some years, but that was hard to deal with for a long while.
1:13 Europeans don't consider themselves Liberals in the classic sense of the word? We don't believe in Democracy? I think we very much do lol. As for capitalism, to a certain degree. Just not as much as you guys.
It's meant different things over the years. Like most words it evolved with the times. Forward and better have been the main parts regardless of the current focus. Whether is was social, economic, or a mix.
“An opinion is vulgarity, even when it is not sincere… Every instance of sincerity is an intolerance. There are no sincere liberal minds. There are, for that matter, no liberal minds.” -FP
Progressives are more numerous than you may care to imagine and are represented in both major US political parties. They, since the New Deal was implemented in the 1930's, have changed much of the fundamental underpinnings of the Constitution; the most significant being the administrative state. This state exists largely outside of the checks and balances of the 3 branches of federal government. In itself, it creates rules, similar to laws, and judicial oversight of itself. The judicial part is through a Supreme Court precedent called "judicial deference", meaning that the Supreme Court should not/cannot rule on administrative state judicial findings.
@ I’m not that smart 😂 all I know is I don’t like the direction the country is headed and the country is getting dumber and gayer. And it seems like the political class is selling us out. It’s a total 💩 show
NIce to hear this explained, even if its brief. I feel like nowadays people conflate these terms so much that it's become insufferable to have to explain the difference a thousand times over.
All political terms. I'm not good with remembering terminology so I got sick of being confused, bought a defining political terms and ideals and realized the majority of those on the internet were like me, clueless about the real meanings. I still feel clueless most the time because like you said they conflate the terms so much and use opposing terms to describe the same thing.
This is an odd video. I don't want to split hairs. For me, liberal, leftist and progressive mean the same thing. They are interchangable. Personally I like progressive the best. It is a very descriptive word. It is about progress, progress as in changing society in attempts to improve it. Progressive is a different thing from being libertarian. Anybody in favor of freedom and small government is a libertarian. They may or may not be progressive. This video does show the political compass. That makes this distinction clear. The red quadarnt is progressive aka leftist. The yellow quadrant is libertarian. The green quantant is both. I personally fit into the green quadrant. There is something important to keep in mind. What counts as liberal is very much relative to the time period. As time marches on, civilization changes. Therefore standards change. Democracy and capitalism was liberal back in the days of the founding fathers. It was more liberal than monarchy and feudalism. That was controversial back then. The controversy was especially heated in America and France, where there were violent revolutions. The distinction of left and right actually comes from France at the time. It is based on how politicians sat in the government. Conservatives are more elitist. So they get to sit on the right, where there is a place of honor. That is why conservatives even today are refered to as rightist or right wing. Liberals sit on the other side. So they are also refered to as leftist and left wing. Times are different now. Things are way different. What was liberal back then is the status quo and have been widely accepted. Monarchy and feudalism are extict in many places. Things have shifted. Now being into socialism and political correctness is liberal. Those are what is controversial now. Capitalism used to be liberal. Now it is conservative. The economy of society changes and prograsses. It was feudalism long ago. Then it changed to capitalism. Socialism is the next stage to the progression. It used to be liberal to have an idea that every man was equal. The equality back then was different to equality now. Now equality includes colored people, women and LGBT+. These were not part of the notion of equality way back when. The modern version of that is pollitical correctness.
There is a distinction with economic and social. It is helpful because they are different controversies. The main one is the economy. Capitalism is conservative. Socialism is progressive. A secondary is social issues. Bigotry is conservative. Political correctness is progressive. I can think of a nicer word to call the conservative way besides bigotry. The distinction between economic and social is helpful for understanding controversies themselves. However they are not good labels for people. If someone is economically progressive, they are usually socially progressive too. This person can just be called a progressive, and that sums them up well. The same thing happens to conservatives. It is rare for someone to be progressive in one thing and conservative in another. So I wouldn't worry about that. Progressive isn't strictly about social issues. This video mentioned socialism. That is a very misunderstood word. So I would like to clarify. Socialism comes in different severities. It can also combine with a large or small government. So there is also a lot of variety of socialists. Anybody that is economically progressive and rejects capitalism is a socialist. I even think American Democrats are socialist, even if they don't call themselves that. They are a mild kind of socialist. Socialism is about changing the economy to favors the poor. There is a rejection of capitalism and the upper class. Businesses are kept in check by unions, government or both. There is a reduction of class differences. I consider Marxist and socialist to be the same thing. They are interchangable. Karl Marx is the guy that came up with socialism and communism. Communism is the extreme form of socialism. It is for getting rid of business and class entirely. Socialism can range from the tame kind the Democrats do to the more intense kind that communists can do. Communist do vary in the size of government they want. In the political compass, the left edge of the graphs is taken up by communists. They range from the totalitarian communists (aka Stalinists) in the red corner to the anarcho-communists in the green corner.
This is my first time ever hearing of this guy. I wish there were more people like him to help convert other young guys into progressive, left-of-liberal type people.
I think to a certain extend you could argue the republican party is actually more liberal than the democratic party, because it puts the individual freedom more central in their rationales instead of governmental control/involvement. Examples are there position about guns, governmental climate and environmental interventions, freedom of speech, free markets, etc..
In some ways yes, but in other ways no. Republicans want to move church closer to the state (for example, banning abortion for religious reasons) which is very anti-liberal.
Selectively so, they are generally speaking for deregulation (although the Trump tariffs and trade war talk is very anti-liberal) are very much inline with Classical Liberalism. But the preference for a closer relationship between Christianity and the courts, schools, and public life is very anti-liberal. Florida's book bannings within schools, is very anti-liberal and anti-free speech. The deregulation of industry and the roll back of labor protections is very classically liberal though. So it's a half and half. The issue is that a lot of these terms have their formal definitions stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the political boundaries were between the entrenched land owning aristocratic classes and those of the industrialist rising middle classes. Now a days our political divisions don't line up so well to those old constraints. But we've kept the same words around, so the meanings have slowly shifted.
@@yourdreams2440 Banning abortion doesn't bring church and state any closer together. Church and state being intertwined would look like a state church having power (C of E in England, Catholic church in Ireland pre 2000s). People legislating on a moral issue they care about doesn't bring church and state any closer together than banning stealing.
@@MobiusCoin weird, conservatives banning things that go against there arbitrarily set social norms because of some "moral degeneracy" or "societal decline". unheard of :D
It’s interesting to hear these guys talk about politics. They’re clearly intelligent, interested, and engaged but it’s not a dominant part of their lives.
Liberal - practically speaking, an American centrist. Often times suburban, probably lives in the North-East (although can be found elsewhere like the Pacific North West), probably married, with kids, affluent, with a college degree. Believes in capitalism, but also a strong social safety net. Ambivalent to tepidly supportive of social justice movements, like BLM and trans-activists, but wouldn't vote on those issues. Mostly secular, although some mainline Protestants may be found with their ranks (Episcopalians, certain Methodists and Lutherans, etc). Usually they are mostly put off by the evangelical aspects of Republican politics, not the economic aspects. In the 80's and 90's, these people might have been moderate Republicans. Doesn't care that much about foreign policy except when it becomes a long drawn out wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but doesn't mind the interventions they don't hear about much. Also won't vote on these issues. Very status quo oriented, other than the ultra-wealthy, the American political system is geared towards serving these people. Progressive - College educated, urban, younger. Primarily votes on social issues, economically very left leaning, anti-capitalist, but only insofar that economic policies serves the needs of social justice. Will support and champion minority owned businesses and other businesses/corporations that align with them politically (Patagonia and Disney). Usually will grow up and have kids and turn into liberals. Leftists - College educated (despite their pretensions to being the political movement of the global poor), anti-capitalist, and anti-liberal (both in terms of modern American liberals and classical liberalism), anti-religion (mostly anti-Christian though), and in some cases anti-democracy (see tankies vs libertarian socialists). A collective term for self-described socialists, communists, and anarchists. Terminally online, always arguing over "theory" and "praxis". They are to the left what neo-Nazis and white nationalists are to the right. But with none of the institutional connections nor with any comparable ability to organize.
I think your definitions are missing the fact there is a large "liberal" (or maybe Democrat-voting) contingent in the US who are neither college educated or affluent.
@@kyle1235 For whatever reason, non-white non-college educated Democrats are usually not considered liberals despite being part of the Democratic coalition. The key thing to note is that Democrats or people who vote Democrat are not necessarily the same thing as liberals. Black voters historically have largely voted as a block, and overwhelmingly tend to vote for Democrats. They tend to be categorized separately from liberals despite sharing a common set of interests and priorities. As for white non-college non-affluent voters for Democrats who tend to be pro-union, pro-protectionist policies which comfortably and historically situate within the Democratic Party (although recent trends have seen Republicans peel some of those voters away). But I wouldn't consider them liberals in the most common usage of the word. I'd imagine some of those people might even be offended by that term. As for the rural poor, Democrats have been bleeding those voters for decades. In short, I think the "largeness" of that contingent who are neither college educated or affluent who would consider themselves liberals are vanishingly small. And those who remain under the Democratic tent would not characterize themselves as liberals anymore.
@@MobiusCoin You make a lot of good points here, but I would probably not characterize that contingent as vanishingly small. I think that perception is more of a byproduct of very few online and traditional media platforms having a lot of content that caters to them. For the same reason I would say outlets such as FoxNews aim to primarily attract suburban conservatives. I imagine those demographics are more attractive to advertisers.
It's almost like a liberal is a word associated with many different political parties in many countries that all have differences in government and ideologies and don't always mean the same thing.
@@et34t34fdf there's a difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism, what you're referring to is classic liberalism. In this video Destiny is referring to modern liberalism.
@0:20 Um no. Democrats do not fall under traditional liberalism definition nor to those that are right leaning. "Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech" Neither dems nor reps are into small / limited government. Most on the dems side are not all about economic freedom and neither are into free markets as they both have their own groups that they cater to. Libertarian is more in the direction of limit government, personal responsibility, etc. No wonder why Destiny's ideas are so messed up as he has his own definitions for words. He is literally unaware of what he is talking about. He claims to be for capitalism and he is also a big supported of progressive social ideas. Destiny - those progressive social ideas have to be funded. How does government fund things? By taking your money via taxation. Governments role in the US is well defined in the constitution. Currently, well and for the last century, has been doing its best to completely ignore the founding documents, thus gubment is the bloated institution that we have today that has run the country into $34 trillion in debt and over $100 trillion in long-term obligations. That is NOT capitalism, Destiny.
"He is literally unaware of what he is talking about. He claims to be for capitalism and he is also a big supported of progressive social ideas. Destiny - those progressive social ideas have to be funded. How does government fund things? By taking your money via taxation." damn why wouldnt they just print more money?
So in your head you can not be a capitalist and a progressive. Got it, you don't know anything about what you're talking about. You also don't understand what liberalism is. The entirety of Western civilization is built on liberalism. It is the global world order for the most part.
Do u know how to define these things? U do realize that these labels are used differently depending on who is saying it and where they are from right? If u don't get what he's saying, you're just slow
as someone who knows very little to nothing about politics, it feels like he's trying to define these terms for what they really represent at the moment in the simplest way rather than just give the broad not-very-practical definition of each term
These terms have historical contexts and the meaning of these words have drifted. He's not doing a good job of differentiating between Classical Liberalism of the 18th and 19th century and the colloquial use of "liberal" in American politics. But that's the problem about asking for a definition but not wanting to know why these terms have come about or understanding that language shifts are inevitable.
@@pepegaplays4023 well conservatism has a set of maxims put forward by the conservative thinkers of the 19th and 18th hundred (honestly cant be bothered to list their imperatives its basically all very anti-individualistic and anti liberal since it was created more or less in direct contrast to egalitarianism/liberalism), whereas the word liberalism hints what the political endgoal is. "liberalis" means free (who would have thought) so conclusively the political goal is to maximize the freedom of every individual. modern conservatives have the problem that basically all our countries in europe or the usa have an egalitarian individualistic understanding of society and people within that society so they try to limbo their way somehow into that framework while maintaining some of their underlying ideological assumptions which is why on a very fundamental level conservative presuppositions (that you could exclude from liberalism) about societies and people all suck ass if you think for like 5 seconds.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Broadly speaking, Destiny is a girl's name
ad hominem as usual cant argue against him
True
To be specific, it’s usually a stripper’s name, isn’t it?
@@Ovenandroid23where’s the argumentation?
An ad hominem without an actual attempt to argument against a point isn’t an ad hominem. That’s an insult. 😂
That's not his name lol
Destiny is so nice to these students.
Liberal- individualistic, live and let live. Focus on individuals interacting voluntarily. Progressive- individualistic on identity, collectivist on social issues towards progress away from traditional roles. Leftist- communitarian, focuses on labor activism and the relations between labor and capital.
"Why are liberals so unhappy" is such a biased question from a extremely online perspective. Most people who are liberal (and probably conservative as well) are just regular people doing regular things that aren't constantly whining online. The fact that he asked that question only shows how his world view is shaped by online comments.
There are scientific studies that show that conservatives are generally happier and live more fulfilling lives than liberals
arent there stats showcasing this? o.o
@@sunnysangha2097There are stats indicating they are unhappier, though both sides are trending in that direction unfortunately. I guess the liberals would counterpoint with conservatives being less intelligent, neither point really matters since it varies by individual.
Interesting
Not really they've done studies on this.
I've heard these defined several times but I can never remember the difference because so many people throw these terms around flippantly. It just becomes so confusing and I honestly don't see the point in remembering at this point when so few people actually use the terms properly.
I wanna see Destiny and Dennis Prager discuss Liberalism now...
It's a whole load of bullcrap.
Liberal - someone who's main values are freedom and individuality.
That makes them usually in oposition to Authoritarians, who try to increase the state's control over the population and usually makes them capitalists, as it's the current prevailing economical system in an non-interventionist environment. They are usually culturally slightly to the left of center, as they usually support the minority rights, but that support is more like a lack of will to infringe on them rather than actual push for more equal society.
Leftist - a purely localized term, meaning anyone, who is on the left of the spectrum of the political debate in a given environment. The opposite here is a Right-winger. And a USA's leftist might very well find themselves considered right-wing in other, more left-leaning countries (like Norway). In the States it's very simple as there's a two party system, so realistically anyone who is vote-blue-no-matter-what (or further to the left than Dems o currently relevant talking points) is a leftist for USA's standards.
Far-left is a type of leftist whose beliefs are radical enough not to be represented in the mainstream political discourse (The opposite is Far-right). In the States, that would for an example include people more left-leaning economically than Social-Democrats, as American political discourse has been heavily dominated by capitalist ideologies.
Progressive - a term that is best explained as an opposition to Conservative and Traditionalist. Usually politically driven by a desire of change to the status quo on some issue and implement a solution that wasn't historically present in a given place. So in the USA that not only means cultural policies like trans acceptance, but can also include, for instance, nationalization of healthcare (which is an economic policy) and historically all the movements like abolitionists, workers rights, suffragettes and so on, were all proggressives.
Conservative - someone who believes that the current status quo is the best we're gonna have and that changing it (in either direction) would be detrimental (either as a change of status quo, or due to the implementation cost aka "we don't need it, not worth it"). It is true that it's very close to liberals in the States (and realisticly - most Democrats are conservatives), because the right (most Republicans) are actually
Traditionalist - someone who believes that we as the society implemented detrimental changes and we should seek to reverse them. Those are the guys who believe that they would rather live in the 50's or even further back, often oppose social legislation such as gay marriage or even in the more radical cases anti-apartheid.
You deserve more than 4 thumbs up for that essay lol
Exactly and that's why American Liberals are not actually liberal at all. Most so called liberals never cracked a book about liberalism.
Assuming Graham is right about Liberals being more unhappy, it’s probably because they tend to be more empathetic towards others and have a greater awareness of the awful things happening around the world. Those things can bear a lot of weight on an individual. Conservatives can have these traits as well but I believe it’s less common.
As far as being happy, mental problems hit all humans around 18-24 when your brain begins final education, like your college years. It happened to my brother with Schizophrenia freshman year of college so I looked into it online when that became available to learn that. Always thought it was fascinating. My brother is a completely different person from who I grew up with. Better now it's been some years, but that was hard to deal with for a long while.
1:13 Europeans don't consider themselves Liberals in the classic sense of the word? We don't believe in Democracy? I think we very much do lol. As for capitalism, to a certain degree. Just not as much as you guys.
Which broad, poorly-defined stereotype are YOU?
Wokeness took the word progressive. It used to mean wanting to move the country forward on mostly economic policy.
It's meant different things over the years. Like most words it evolved with the times. Forward and better have been the main parts regardless of the current focus. Whether is was social, economic, or a mix.
“An opinion is vulgarity, even when it is not sincere…
Every instance of sincerity is an intolerance. There are no sincere liberal minds. There are, for that matter, no liberal minds.” -FP
This guys example of the left groups are not even touching the top
Destiny doesn't know what the hell he's talking about
2:09 I agree with this definition.
Liberals and conservatives live in the world as it is, progressives live in the world as they wish it to be
Progressives are more numerous than you may care to imagine and are represented in both major US political parties. They, since the New Deal was implemented in the 1930's, have changed much of the fundamental underpinnings of the Constitution; the most significant being the administrative state. This state exists largely outside of the checks and balances of the 3 branches of federal government. In itself, it creates rules, similar to laws, and judicial oversight of itself. The judicial part is through a Supreme Court precedent called "judicial deference", meaning that the Supreme Court should not/cannot rule on administrative state judicial findings.
@ I’m not that smart 😂 all I know is I don’t like the direction the country is headed and the country is getting dumber and gayer. And it seems like the political class is selling us out. It’s a total 💩 show
NIce to hear this explained, even if its brief.
I feel like nowadays people conflate these terms so much that it's become insufferable to have to explain the difference a thousand times over.
All political terms. I'm not good with remembering terminology so I got sick of being confused, bought a defining political terms and ideals and realized the majority of those on the internet were like me, clueless about the real meanings. I still feel clueless most the time because like you said they conflate the terms so much and use opposing terms to describe the same thing.
@@FreeWorldSpirit313 Exactly!
This is an odd video. I don't want to split hairs. For me, liberal, leftist and progressive mean the same thing. They are interchangable. Personally I like progressive the best. It is a very descriptive word. It is about progress, progress as in changing society in attempts to improve it. Progressive is a different thing from being libertarian. Anybody in favor of freedom and small government is a libertarian. They may or may not be progressive. This video does show the political compass. That makes this distinction clear. The red quadarnt is progressive aka leftist. The yellow quadrant is libertarian. The green quantant is both. I personally fit into the green quadrant.
There is something important to keep in mind. What counts as liberal is very much relative to the time period. As time marches on, civilization changes. Therefore standards change. Democracy and capitalism was liberal back in the days of the founding fathers. It was more liberal than monarchy and feudalism. That was controversial back then. The controversy was especially heated in America and France, where there were violent revolutions. The distinction of left and right actually comes from France at the time. It is based on how politicians sat in the government. Conservatives are more elitist. So they get to sit on the right, where there is a place of honor. That is why conservatives even today are refered to as rightist or right wing. Liberals sit on the other side. So they are also refered to as leftist and left wing.
Times are different now. Things are way different. What was liberal back then is the status quo and have been widely accepted. Monarchy and feudalism are extict in many places. Things have shifted. Now being into socialism and political correctness is liberal. Those are what is controversial now. Capitalism used to be liberal. Now it is conservative. The economy of society changes and prograsses. It was feudalism long ago. Then it changed to capitalism. Socialism is the next stage to the progression. It used to be liberal to have an idea that every man was equal. The equality back then was different to equality now. Now equality includes colored people, women and LGBT+. These were not part of the notion of equality way back when. The modern version of that is pollitical correctness.
There is a distinction with economic and social. It is helpful because they are different controversies. The main one is the economy. Capitalism is conservative. Socialism is progressive. A secondary is social issues. Bigotry is conservative. Political correctness is progressive. I can think of a nicer word to call the conservative way besides bigotry. The distinction between economic and social is helpful for understanding controversies themselves. However they are not good labels for people. If someone is economically progressive, they are usually socially progressive too. This person can just be called a progressive, and that sums them up well. The same thing happens to conservatives. It is rare for someone to be progressive in one thing and conservative in another. So I wouldn't worry about that. Progressive isn't strictly about social issues.
This video mentioned socialism. That is a very misunderstood word. So I would like to clarify. Socialism comes in different severities. It can also combine with a large or small government. So there is also a lot of variety of socialists. Anybody that is economically progressive and rejects capitalism is a socialist. I even think American Democrats are socialist, even if they don't call themselves that. They are a mild kind of socialist. Socialism is about changing the economy to favors the poor. There is a rejection of capitalism and the upper class. Businesses are kept in check by unions, government or both. There is a reduction of class differences. I consider Marxist and socialist to be the same thing. They are interchangable. Karl Marx is the guy that came up with socialism and communism. Communism is the extreme form of socialism. It is for getting rid of business and class entirely. Socialism can range from the tame kind the Democrats do to the more intense kind that communists can do. Communist do vary in the size of government they want. In the political compass, the left edge of the graphs is taken up by communists. They range from the totalitarian communists (aka Stalinists) in the red corner to the anarcho-communists in the green corner.
This is my first time ever hearing of this guy. I wish there were more people like him to help convert other young guys into progressive, left-of-liberal type people.
young man don't want to be liberal soy-cucks like Destiny
I think to a certain extend you could argue the republican party is actually more liberal than the democratic party, because it puts the individual freedom more central in their rationales instead of governmental control/involvement. Examples are there position about guns, governmental climate and environmental interventions, freedom of speech, free markets, etc..
In some ways yes, but in other ways no. Republicans want to move church closer to the state (for example, banning abortion for religious reasons) which is very anti-liberal.
Selectively so, they are generally speaking for deregulation (although the Trump tariffs and trade war talk is very anti-liberal) are very much inline with Classical Liberalism. But the preference for a closer relationship between Christianity and the courts, schools, and public life is very anti-liberal. Florida's book bannings within schools, is very anti-liberal and anti-free speech. The deregulation of industry and the roll back of labor protections is very classically liberal though. So it's a half and half. The issue is that a lot of these terms have their formal definitions stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the political boundaries were between the entrenched land owning aristocratic classes and those of the industrialist rising middle classes. Now a days our political divisions don't line up so well to those old constraints. But we've kept the same words around, so the meanings have slowly shifted.
@@yourdreams2440 Banning abortion doesn't bring church and state any closer together. Church and state being intertwined would look like a state church having power (C of E in England, Catholic church in Ireland pre 2000s). People legislating on a moral issue they care about doesn't bring church and state any closer together than banning stealing.
@@MobiusCoin weird, conservatives banning things that go against there arbitrarily set social norms because of some "moral degeneracy" or "societal decline".
unheard of :D
@@abcdefksohfosuh9024 Yeah but banning abortion requires government involvement, which Classical Liberals are likely to oppose in all cases.
Liberal has become progressivism.
Well if you want a short answer to progressive just look at ex president Wilson 🤦♂️
It’s interesting to hear these guys talk about politics. They’re clearly intelligent, interested, and engaged but it’s not a dominant part of their lives.
Good for them. lol
Liberal - practically speaking, an American centrist. Often times suburban, probably lives in the North-East (although can be found elsewhere like the Pacific North West), probably married, with kids, affluent, with a college degree. Believes in capitalism, but also a strong social safety net. Ambivalent to tepidly supportive of social justice movements, like BLM and trans-activists, but wouldn't vote on those issues. Mostly secular, although some mainline Protestants may be found with their ranks (Episcopalians, certain Methodists and Lutherans, etc). Usually they are mostly put off by the evangelical aspects of Republican politics, not the economic aspects. In the 80's and 90's, these people might have been moderate Republicans. Doesn't care that much about foreign policy except when it becomes a long drawn out wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but doesn't mind the interventions they don't hear about much. Also won't vote on these issues. Very status quo oriented, other than the ultra-wealthy, the American political system is geared towards serving these people.
Progressive - College educated, urban, younger. Primarily votes on social issues, economically very left leaning, anti-capitalist, but only insofar that economic policies serves the needs of social justice. Will support and champion minority owned businesses and other businesses/corporations that align with them politically (Patagonia and Disney). Usually will grow up and have kids and turn into liberals.
Leftists - College educated (despite their pretensions to being the political movement of the global poor), anti-capitalist, and anti-liberal (both in terms of modern American liberals and classical liberalism), anti-religion (mostly anti-Christian though), and in some cases anti-democracy (see tankies vs libertarian socialists). A collective term for self-described socialists, communists, and anarchists. Terminally online, always arguing over "theory" and "praxis". They are to the left what neo-Nazis and white nationalists are to the right. But with none of the institutional connections nor with any comparable ability to organize.
I think your definitions are missing the fact there is a large "liberal" (or maybe Democrat-voting) contingent in the US who are neither college educated or affluent.
@@kyle1235 For whatever reason, non-white non-college educated Democrats are usually not considered liberals despite being part of the Democratic coalition. The key thing to note is that Democrats or people who vote Democrat are not necessarily the same thing as liberals. Black voters historically have largely voted as a block, and overwhelmingly tend to vote for Democrats. They tend to be categorized separately from liberals despite sharing a common set of interests and priorities.
As for white non-college non-affluent voters for Democrats who tend to be pro-union, pro-protectionist policies which comfortably and historically situate within the Democratic Party (although recent trends have seen Republicans peel some of those voters away). But I wouldn't consider them liberals in the most common usage of the word. I'd imagine some of those people might even be offended by that term.
As for the rural poor, Democrats have been bleeding those voters for decades.
In short, I think the "largeness" of that contingent who are neither college educated or affluent who would consider themselves liberals are vanishingly small. And those who remain under the Democratic tent would not characterize themselves as liberals anymore.
@@MobiusCoin You make a lot of good points here, but I would probably not characterize that contingent as vanishingly small. I think that perception is more of a byproduct of very few online and traditional media platforms having a lot of content that caters to them. For the same reason I would say outlets such as FoxNews aim to primarily attract suburban conservatives. I imagine those demographics are more attractive to advertisers.
No, a liberal in other parts of the world is basically a libertarian, not some kind of centrist ideology.
It's almost like a liberal is a word associated with many different political parties in many countries that all have differences in government and ideologies and don't always mean the same thing.
@@Necrowarp_ I can't speak for all the world, but in Europe, no, there isn't much room for interpretation on this, liberal means libertarian.
@@et34t34fdf there's a difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism, what you're referring to is classic liberalism. In this video Destiny is referring to modern liberalism.
@@Necrowarp_ Liberalism and classical liberalism in Europe is the same thing.
@@et34t34fdf UK*, not all of Europe. And you are correct. We aren't disagreeing on anything here.
That bro is so creepy.
So I'm a conservative then
You don’t believe in democracy, individual freedom, private property rights, and all that?
@0:20
Um no. Democrats do not fall under traditional liberalism definition nor to those that are right leaning.
"Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech"
Neither dems nor reps are into small / limited government. Most on the dems side are not all about economic freedom and neither are into free markets as they both have their own groups that they cater to.
Libertarian is more in the direction of limit government, personal responsibility, etc.
No wonder why Destiny's ideas are so messed up as he has his own definitions for words.
He is literally unaware of what he is talking about. He claims to be for capitalism and he is also a big supported of progressive social ideas. Destiny - those progressive social ideas have to be funded. How does government fund things? By taking your money via taxation.
Governments role in the US is well defined in the constitution. Currently, well and for the last century, has been doing its best to completely ignore the founding documents, thus gubment is the bloated institution that we have today that has run the country into $34 trillion in debt and over $100 trillion in long-term obligations. That is NOT capitalism, Destiny.
He never said classical liberalism, he said liberalism. Liberalism is very broad.
Non Americans talking about American politics is always cringe. Y'all don't understand what is going on here at all.
He's literally talking about the modern global definition of liberalism, not classic liberalism. Pay attention.
"He is literally unaware of what he is talking about. He claims to be for capitalism and he is also a big supported of progressive social ideas. Destiny - those progressive social ideas have to be funded. How does government fund things? By taking your money via taxation."
damn why wouldnt they just print more money?
So in your head you can not be a capitalist and a progressive. Got it, you don't know anything about what you're talking about. You also don't understand what liberalism is. The entirety of Western civilization is built on liberalism. It is the global world order for the most part.
He doesn't really know what he's talking about, does he?
disappointing to see that Destiny has no idea what he is talking about
Elaborate on it instead of making a surface level comment.
So basically he knows very little about this or at least incapable of explaining.
Do u know how to define these things? U do realize that these labels are used differently depending on who is saying it and where they are from right? If u don't get what he's saying, you're just slow
as someone who knows very little to nothing about politics, it feels like he's trying to define these terms for what they really represent at the moment in the simplest way rather than just give the broad not-very-practical definition of each term
These terms have historical contexts and the meaning of these words have drifted. He's not doing a good job of differentiating between Classical Liberalism of the 18th and 19th century and the colloquial use of "liberal" in American politics. But that's the problem about asking for a definition but not wanting to know why these terms have come about or understanding that language shifts are inevitable.
@@pepegaplays4023 well conservatism has a set of maxims put forward by the conservative thinkers of the 19th and 18th hundred (honestly cant be bothered to list their imperatives its basically all very anti-individualistic and anti liberal since it was created more or less in direct contrast to egalitarianism/liberalism), whereas the word liberalism hints what the political endgoal is. "liberalis" means free (who would have thought) so conclusively the political goal is to maximize the freedom of every individual.
modern conservatives have the problem that basically all our countries in europe or the usa have an egalitarian individualistic understanding of society and people within that society so they try to limbo their way somehow into that framework while maintaining some of their underlying ideological assumptions which is why on a very fundamental level conservative presuppositions (that you could exclude from liberalism) about societies and people all suck ass if you think for like 5 seconds.
@@Ryan-to1prcorrect and btw he’s absolutely correct on everything no academic would disagree