“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future?

No - understanding of the idea remains the same - what name you give it is where the 'fuzz' factor comes in. Here, the author uses 'social liberalism' in one way (a popular way) in the headline, but reverts to using it in a scholarly way within the article.

The author is using it consistently in both the headline and the article.

If an understanding of an article is not dependent on the audience, then why did you write the following?
I would go with public perception probably 90 percent of the time shag – until I knew the audience better.
What difference does the audience make as to your understanding of the idea?

I think if presented properly '04 would see the difference between the scholarly approach to the term social liberal and the popular definition. Obviously this article doesn't do that. It is depending on keeping that difference 'fuzzy' to create sensationalism.

"Public perception" is, at best, incoherent and all over the place. It is influenced both by the understanding (or lack of understanding) those reporting the news have of the various ideologies, as well as the rhetoric aimed at distorting and misleading.

That said, you are the first person I have ever come across who attempts to make a distinction between "social" liberalism and "modern" liberalism.

No it is not what I said, it is simply what fits the narrative you are creating. If you actually look at that quote of me if verifies that. I NEVER equated social and fiscal liberalism. I said they were interdependent parts of the a whole; modern liberalism.

That is an important difference; not mere semantics...

It isn't arbitrary - it is how 90% of the people see them as being different - that a social liberal doesn't need to embrace social fiscal policy.

Now you are saying something different.

People may thing it is possible to take the social policies of liberalism and combine then with conservative fiscal policies, but that is not what you are arguing.

You are arguing that social liberalism is separate from liberalism as a whole.

In the first instance, ideas are derived from a coherent, logically consistent worldview (liberalism) and combined with ideas from a different worldview (conservatism). In your argument, those ideas are not derived from a coherent worldview.


If his viewpoint is reflective of the sources of information he reads, then his personal viewpoint is not the standard by which accuracy is to be judged. His viewpoint reflects the sources he reads. If those sources are inaccurate, then what he believes is inaccurate.

I don't see that quote there

Sorry, post #14
I don't think that social justice is tied to social liberal...
You could have looked that up...

What am I proving - that '04 doesn't equate his definition of social liberal with the scholarly definition - you will need to have him weigh in on this.

This has noting to to with '04. It is in what you claimed in post #14.

Looking for more a US point of view or European Shag? pro property or anti property? anarchy? Once again - this article is hinging on how terms are defined by different groups - I am not sure how you define libertarianism. Once you get that for me I will be able to compare it to a scholarly or populace definition of social liberal-you can chose.

You are dodging.

You reject the notion that social justice is tied to liberalism yet you cannot explain the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism does not try to change society; liberalism does.

If ideological distinctions are "defined differently by different groups" and are thus completely subjective and unable to be discussed, as you imply, then how can you confidently reject the notion that Obama is a Marxist and/or socialist as you did in this thread?
And Obama isn't a Marxist...

Doubtful, not in the classic definition of the term either...[in response to the claim that Obama is a socialist]

So, what sort of definition are you going with when you label Obama as a socialist - under what 'sense'. Who's school of socialism are you putting Obama in? [asking for specifics suggests that you do not think that ideology is so subjective and open to interpretation as to be ultimately undefinable and undebatable]
So, you wanna try again?

How do you explain the difference between libertarianism and liberalism in the area of social policy?
Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
 
What I was getting at is that when a person defines themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal they're usually not referring to politics.
In politics the two are contradictory positions.

That is because they are, first and foremost, contradictory social views based in opposing worldviews.

If you are talking about tolerance of certain actions, lifestyles, etc. you are inherently talking about social views; from which political views are derived. And the social views you are talking about are more in line with classical liberalism then with modern "liberalism".

The author is not "misconceptualizing" things here; it is simply confusing wording. To understand the difference, you need to understand the difference between classical liberalism and modern "liberalism". If the claim that "conservatism is strongly rooted in liberalism" seems oxymoron to you, then you need a better understanding of what true liberalism is and is not.

"Liberalism" in the modern sense has very little to do with liberalism in the classical sense; in fact they are primarily polar opposites. The term "liberalism" is derived from the idea of maximizing liberty, which was the overriding goal of classical liberalism. "Liberal" was a noun used to describe advocates of classical liberalism. From there it spread to the other uses you talk about, being used as an adjective (a "liberal" amount, etc.) Basically, the term "liberal" is derived from the classical liberal social viewpoint.

Modern liberalism is far different then classical liberalism and in many ways bastardizes the term. Nanny state policies like redistribution of wealth, economic regulation, etc. are all antithetical to true, classical liberalism. There is definitely a distinction between the modern political ideology of liberalism and the type of liberalism you are referring to. But the type of liberalism you are referring to stems from the classical liberal viewpoint.
 
The author is using it consistently in both the headline and the article.
Shag – he is using social liberal in the headline to grab people who identify with that concept using a ‘popular’ definition. Then the author goes on in the article to use it as modern liberalism, the scholarly approach to the term.

As you stated later – the terms have come to be mixed up – and as I said in post #19
Conservative in today's terms actually is more equated to the classic usage of the word 'liberal' and vice versa.​

He doesn’t state that he is moving between the populace view of the word and the scholarly definition of the term.

If an understanding of an article is not dependent on the audience, then why did you write the following?

I would go with public perception probably 90 percent of the time shag – until I knew the audience better.

What difference does the audience make as to your understanding of the idea?

Well, shag – I have no idea of what that first sentence means…

But, if you don’t understand how a term is being used in an article, you will get lost regarding the idea. Many people understand the term ‘social liberal’ one way – just like ’04 explained it. Here the author didn’t state that he was going to go into the more scholarly direction of the term He very much used the populace version in the headline and then built his argument around the scholarly definition, which adds social justice. When you add social justice you also add liberal fiscal policies.

I don’t think that most people, when they use the term social liberal, intend to tie it up with social justice – as I have stated before. They want it to stand on its own without the hubbub of does the social justice of equality of opportunity demand the ‘social justice’ of equality of results… Then they can avoid adding liberal fiscal policy to their definition of social liberal.

I think you can make a case for social liberal standing on its own.

"Public perception" is, at best, incoherent and all over the place. It is influenced both by the understanding (or lack of understanding) those reporting the news have of the various ideologies, as well as the rhetoric aimed at distorting and misleading.
Yep – public perception is all over the place –especially with these terms – liberal and conservative. If you are going to argue a point though- don’t shift between a populace perception and a scholarly perception without defining them both.
That said, you are the first person I have ever come across who attempts to make a distinction between "social" liberalism and "modern" liberalism.

Shag – note the difference

Social Liberal’ (not liberalism) as defined by the majority of the population doesn’t equal ‘Modern Liberalism’ as defined by scholars. The majority of the population perceives the term Social Liberal to not include ‘social justice’ therefore it isn’t tied up with ‘fiscal liberal’.

Social liberalism and modern liberalism as defined by scholars are, I think, exactly the same. Audience shag, audience…

No it is not what I said, it is simply what fits the narrative you are creating. If you actually look at that quote of me if verifies that. I NEVER equated social and fiscal liberalism. I said they were interdependent parts of the a whole; modern liberalism.

That is an important difference; not mere semantics...

So, I am not quite sure here what you are talking about there isn’t a quote from me…
But, let’s just go with something here – do you think you can be a social liberal and not have social justice, therefore liberal fiscal policies tied up in it? And try to go with the definition that ’04 would go with when he was placing himself in the social liberal/fiscal conservative camp.

People may thing it is possible to take the social policies of liberalism and combine then with conservative fiscal policies, but that is not what you are arguing.

You are arguing that social liberalism is separate from liberalism as a whole.

In the first instance, ideas are derived from a coherent, logically consistent worldview (liberalism) and combined with ideas from a different worldview (conservatism). In your argument, those ideas are not derived from a coherent worldview.

Nope, I am arguing that social liberals (populace definition) are different than social liberalism – or people like ’04 view themselves apart from modern liberalism.

If his viewpoint is reflective of the sources of information he reads, then his personal viewpoint is not the standard by which accuracy is to be judged. His viewpoint reflects the sources he reads. If those sources are inaccurate, then what he believes is inaccurate.

Well – they may be, but if a majority of people think a term means one thing – and in your article you use it to mean a more scholarly term… well, I just think you need to do a better job of defining things up front – gosh shag you can be so dense.

Hopefully you didn’t take offense – most people would. The rather popular usage of the word dense is ‘stupid’. However, in scientific terms it means compacted together – our molecules are pretty compacted together creating a dense object. You need to define how you are using a term before going from one concept to another within the same article.

Audience again shag.
You reject the notion that social justice is tied to liberalism yet you cannot explain the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism does not try to change society; liberalism does.

Libertarianism – anarchy does change society shag… it isn’t pretty. How far are you pushing libertarianism here? Abolish the state or minimize the state?

If ideological distinctions are "defined differently by different groups" and are thus completely subjective and unable to be discussed, as you imply, then how can you confidently reject the notion that Obama is a Marxist and/or socialist as you did in this thread?

They are able to be discussed – once you get the ground rules down. I think Cal calls Obama a Marxist because either 1) he really does get it mixed up with socialist or 2) he wants the idea to stick – and Marxist is way bad… worse than socialist. So, usually I go with #2 – Cal is a propagandist at heart.

If you notice in the samples you include – I started fairly early asking if the ‘classic’ term was being used – along with which school of thought.

'White'

How many different things am I talking about here?

Socialist has the same problem – lots of ways to go… correct shag? Popular definition, scholarly definition, classic definition, modern definition…

All I am saying is that it is best to get on the same playing field before you delve into intricacies of definitions. Especially in this article where he does a sort of bait and switch – get you in with the popular version, and switch to a scholarly version…

So, you wanna try again?

How do you explain the difference between libertarianism and liberalism in the area of social policy?
Are you removing government completely out of the picture shag – some libertarians do, others don’t – social policy changes a great deal between the two.
 
He doesn’t state that he is moving between the populace view of the word and the scholarly definition of the term.

Because he is not shifting between views. The issue here has simply been one of semantic and a misunderstanding of the way the term "liberal" has been hijacked and bastardized...

Yep – public perception is all over the place –especially with these terms – liberal and conservative. If you are going to argue a point though- don’t shift between a populace perception and a scholarly perception without defining them both.

If "public perception is all over the place" then there is not "a populace perception" but many.

In fact, if there is a public perception it is in the most general terms and is not at all what you are claiming. The "War on Poverty", Universal healthcare, the pushing of smoking bans, and numerous other programs would be identified by most as "socially liberal" but are not consistent with what you are saying or with what '04 was talking about.

The fact is that what '04 was talking about was more consistent with classical liberalism and you know it.

Cal is a propagandist at heart.

No that would be you...

Libertarianism – anarchy does change society shag… it isn’t pretty. How far are you pushing libertarianism here? Abolish the state or minimize the state?

If you don't what to honestly confront ideas on their merits, just say so. Dishonestly marginalizing the idea by misrepresenting only further demonstrates that you are in fact a propagandist...

If you want to avoid libertarianism go with this one; what differentiates modern liberalism from classical liberalism?

To dodge the question or confront it in any other dishonest way only demonstrates that you are in fact a propagandist....
 
Because he is not shifting between views. The issue here has simply been one of semantic and a misunderstanding of the way the term "liberal" has been hijacked and bastardized...

Liberal has been bastardized - I have only agreed with that statement... But, you need to be consistent and if you go between modern (or social) liberalism and others, define which one you are heading into, this author does not.

In fact, if there is a public perception it is in the most general terms and is not at all what you are claiming. The "War on Poverty", Universal healthcare, the pushing of smoking bans, and numerous other programs would be identified by most as "socially liberal" but are not consistent with what you are saying or with what '04 was talking about.

Shag - here you have mixed fiscal and social policy...

Fiscal - universal healthcare and 'war on poverty' - that would make you fiscally liberal if you were for those programs... not socially liberal under the definition most people (like '04) use the term, those things don't even come into play under that term, because social liberal doesn't have anything to do with fiscal policy in the populace definition. I am pretty sure that when '04 thinks of himself as fiscally conservative (as the headline indicates) he doesn't think that government should provide those things. Although - I like how '04 separated out the 'personally' fiscally conservative from 'government' fiscally conservative. So, who knows...?

Smoking bans - a social issue. Most people who would label themselves a social liberal (once again shag - popular definition, not looking at social liberalism ala scholarly usage), would say that smoking is fine - just so long as I don't have to breathe your smoke. Then you are infringing on 'my' rights.

The fact is that what '04 was talking about was more consistent with classical liberalism and you know it.

Yes it was - not modern at all - so that muddies the water even more - he is a social liberal if you use the 'classic' definition of the term 'liberal'.

Nasty stuff...;)

If you want to avoid libertarianism go with this one; what differentiates modern liberalism from classical liberalism?

I'll take on libertarianism too shag - just define it as well as you have these two views of liberalism.

Classic - individualism
Modern - collectivism

Oh, just in case - if you don't take libertarianism all the way to anarchy, or go with the whole weird idea which some libertarians adhere by of some sort of 'anti property' state... I would sort of go with the idea it is Classic Liberalism on steroids.

Oh, you should go to a site called 'The Radical Academy' and check out the stuff by Jonathan Dolhenty - he has a great article about this very subject.
 
Liberal has been bastardized - I have only agreed with that statement... But, you need to be consistent and if you go between modern (or social) liberalism and others, define which one you are heading into, this author does not.
?????? Speak English please.
 
You seem to be ignoring the point that the fiscal side of modern liberalism is simply a means and the social side of modern liberalism is the goal; effecting social change toward a certain ideal. The goal is what necessitates the means. Put differently, without the goal, there is no means. So to characterize any of the issues I listed as being purely "fiscal" is to intentionally ignore the entire justification for them; to dodge.

In fact, your attempts to confuse the issue here nothing more then a disingenuous attempt to dodge any questions concerning social justice and the difference between modern liberalism and libertarianism...

All your distractions about the various incarnations of libertarianism are irrelevant and miss the point; the differences between ideologies lie in the heart of the ideologies; it's goal(s) and means. Any concern about the various incarnations of an ideology are only relevant in differentiating between those incarnations. When differentiating between ideologies, it is irrelevant.

So, can you name the goal(s) and means of modern "liberalism" and of libertarianism? I will give you a hint; the goal and means of libertarianism are the same as classical liberalism. I already pointed out the goal of classical liberalism to you in post #37 of this thread.

If you can not name those basic goals and means then you are way too ignorant to be claiming...
  • ...that social justice is not tied to modern liberalism
  • ...that "social" liberalism is somehow distinct from modern liberalism (as opposed to being a subdivision of modern liberalism)
  • ...that libertarianism is too varied to be distinguished from modern liberalism.
Only a dishonest propagandist would authoritatively misrepresent something they do not understand...
 
You seem to be ignoring the point that the fiscal side of modern liberalism is simply a means and the social side of modern liberalism is the goal; effecting social change toward a certain ideal. The goal is what necessitates the means. Put differently, without the goal, there is no means. So to characterize any of the issues I listed as being purely "fiscal" is to intentionally ignore the entire justification for them; to dodge.

Shag - get over the 'social liberalism' scholarly definition here. I know that the scholarly definition includes the fiscal component - You need to understand that the populace definition doesn't include the fiscal component. Most people define social liberal just as '04 did - concerning itself with a small social issue - this is what he defined it as...

IMO I would say someone who calls themselves a social liberal is primarily refering to being comfortable theoretically and in reality with minorities, gays, and people living other alternative lifestyles.

So the populace version of social liberal (once again shag note I am not saying social liberalism - do you get the difference?) doesn't place a fiscal component within it, however the scholarly version of social liberalism (not social liberal) includes the fiscal component

So, I am defining those things as the populace defines them - as fiscal things... They have social ramifications - but, in the 'fiscal conservative, social liberal' world - they are fiscal concerns.

In fact, your attempts to confuse the issue here nothing more then a disingenuous attempt to dodge any questions concerning social justice and the difference between modern liberalism and libertarianism...

So, I got it wrong?
modern liberalism - collectivism
classic liberalism - individualism
... standard stuff shag.

All your distractions about the various incarnations of libertarianism are irrelevant and miss the point; the differences between ideologies lie in the heart of the ideologies; it's goal(s) and means. Any concern about the various incarnations of an ideology are only relevant in differentiating between those incarnations. When differentiating between ideologies, it is irrelevant

So, when comparing libertarianism we should just go with the 'surface' stuff - maybe define it since the era of the Vietnam war. Did you know that libertarians were active in the SDS shag? You might not want to argue that was just an incarnation -

So, can you name the goal(s) and means of modern "liberalism" and of libertarianism? I will give you a hint; the goal and means of libertarianism are the same as classical liberalism. I already pointed out the goal of classical liberalism to you in post #37 of this thread.
So, before you indicated you wanted an overriding goal to modern socialism, now you seem to indicate there could be more than one that you have in mind -goal(s)- (and thank you for saying 'modern' - you know socialism has classic and modern just like the term liberal).

You had gone with individual liberty as the goal of classic liberalism - I have countered above with collectivism as the goal of modern liberalism - but you want more?

Security, egalitarianism, expansive government -

I need your definition of 'means' to answer the second half... since we aren't going with classic socialism it won't be violent revolution...

If you can not name those basic goals and means then you are way too ignorant to be claiming...
  • ...that social justice is not tied to modern liberalism
You need to note this very closely shag - I use social liberal when I am talking about how the populace defines the idea that '04 identifies with, the ideal that it is 'stay out of my stuff and i'll stay out of your stuff'.

Social justice is tied to modern liberalism in the scholarly definition shag - I have never disagreed with that. However social justice is not tied to social liberal in the popular definition. We can boringly discuss social justice and why I think that it has been altered in its current definition to include equality of outcome. Sort of like liberalism has been bastardized I think social justice has been wrongly attached to egalitarianism.

if you want to take this down just the road of scholarship - we can, as boring as that is... however, the author of this article stared off with the populace idea in the headline and then introduced the scholarly pov within the article. I like the definition of social liberal by '04 - to me 'everyman' is far more interesting than scholar. Take it out of the lab and into everyday life.
  • ...that "social" liberalism is somehow distinct from modern liberalism (as opposed to being a subdivision of modern liberalism)

Once again shag - I know that social liberalism and modern liberalism are the same... or close enough to be just 'increments' apart.

However you need to once again understand - social liberal is a populace term. that is what is distinct from the scholarly terms of social/modern liberalism. There is a distinct difference from how the populace views 'social liberal' and how scholars view 'modern/social liberalism'
  • ...that libertarianism is too varied to be distinguished from modern liberalism.
Only a dishonest propagandist would authoritatively misrepresent something they do not understand...

Shag - did you mean 'distinguished from modern liberalism' or did you mean 'distinguished from modern socialism'?

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

So shag - which one... there are big differences between classic liberalism and one of the above 2 forms of libertarianism. (clue - it isn't deviant sex... ;) )
 
Your attempts to draw false distinctions aside, the article is not using any "scholarly" or "technical" definition of liberalism. The "technical" definition of liberalism would be classical liberalism. However, in the context the author is using the term, it is clear that he is using the term in the colloquial/ "popular"/ modern sense. The fact that the author is not distinguishing that from classical liberalism means he is decidedly not using any "scholarly" definition. The author's usage of the term is consistent throughout the piece as well (headline included). However, acknowledging those facts would take away both your means of dismissing the article as well as the wedge you use to confuse the issue...

Two facts you keep ignoring: A) determining the "popular understanding" of an ideology is only even possible in the most general of terms (if at all) and, B) the populace does not determine what liberalism is and is not. That is determined by the thinkers who came up with the ideas that formed the ideology and/or substantively modified it as well as the application of the ideology throughout history. Ignoring those facts is a great means to create enough vagueness to be able to spin things your way though because you can attribute anything you want to the "popular understanding" of liberalism and no one can disprove it...

BTW: you have not accurately identified the goals and means yet concerning libertarianism. "Maximizing individual liberty" is the goal libertarianism and classical liberalism, but collectivism is not the goal of modern liberalism; it is the means. Since you don't even accurately understand the various ideologies at that basic level, to authoritatively claim what you have only shows that you are in fact attempting to deceive and propagandize...

It would be nice if you could actually have an honest conversation based on the merits of an opposing argument. Unfortunately, as this thread once again demonstrates, deceit and confusion are the only tools you know how to argue with; a propagandist to the core...

You stay classy! ;)
 
Once again shag - I know that social liberalism and modern liberalism are the same... or close enough to be just 'increments' apart.
You 'know' it, but you hedge anyway. Way to ski around both sides of the tree at the same time...:rolleyes:
 
Shag – so I guess populace definitions mean zero – good luck appealing to the masses….

And the author does switch from the ‘popular’ sense in the headline to a more ‘scholarly’ use of liberal in the article… ’04 caught it, and he considers himself a social liberal, fiscal conservative, but he notices how the author proceeded within the article using ‘modern liberal’ usage of the term.

As far as your definitions, no doubt handed down to you by some professor, in a classroom where I didn’t attend, I will have a hard time with this Shag. My 'teachers' are my acquaintances, some of whom have probably written the texts and essays you read in philosophy 101...

so we have collectivism as a ‘means’ of modern liberalism, whose goal is individual liberty -

Both classic liberalism and modern liberalism have the same ‘goal,’ -individual liberty- different means…

And foss - at least I can still strap on the old skis - last time you hit the slopes?
 
I'll race you down a black diamond any time you want.
So snow boy, you are on…
Mandatory Air to Vodka Shots down Chaser Face – Silverton Mountain –
After we are done – how about a little 25k and some target shooting?
However, I can’t halfpipe – but they do have Shawn’s at Silverton… in case you survive the rest.

images

And yes, there is a reason the logo looks like this...
 
So snow boy, you are on…
Mandatory Air to Vodka Shots down Chaser Face – Silverton Mountain –
After we are done – how about a little 25k and some target shooting?
However, I can’t halfpipe – but they do have Shawn’s at Silverton… in case you survive the rest.

images

And yes, there is a reason the logo looks like this...
Target shooting? Sure, I'll bring my HK91 and my Saiga 308. Let's start with the 300 meter targets and work our way outward.
 
Target shooting? Sure, I'll bring my HK91 and my Saiga 308. Let's start with the 300 meter targets and work our way outward.

Remember Foss that you shoot after that 25k - at 8,000 feet altitude - you won't make it 10k. And you have to lug those weapons. Plus, you won't even make it down Mandatory Air - when I went down it I stood at the top for a long time debating if it really was a good day to die.

I know you can target shoot way better than me - no question there. The whole thing is can you breathe after 25k? I could do penalty laps galore even before you get to the targets, let alone be able to lower your heart and respiratory rate to be able to get a decent shot off... and if you miss - penalty laps...

So, back to the subject matter...

Shag - we have both classic and modern liberals with the same goal - correct - individual liberty. The way they get there - a bit different.
 
Remember Foss that you shoot after that 25k - at 8,000 feet altitude - you won't make it 10k. And you have to lug those weapons. Plus, you won't even make it down Mandatory Air - when I went down it I stood at the top for a long time debating if it really was a good day to die.

I know you can target shoot way better than me - no question there. The whole thing is can you breathe after 25k? I could do penalty laps galore even before you get to the targets, let alone be able to lower your heart and respiratory rate to be able to get a decent shot off... and if you miss - penalty laps...
The humorous part is you assuming that, running in front of me while I'm carrying a loaded rifle, you'd make it to the finish line. ;)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top