For the longest time, “liberal” seemed like it basically just meant “Democrat” the same way “conservative” has/had been used to mean “Republican.” Now, it seems like it means “bad Democrat” and is even worse than being MAGA the way many seem to use it. Where did its use as an insult within the [relative] political left come from, and what does it specifically accuse/identify someone of/as?
I think others have answered your question better than me, but I’ll chip in my two cents anyway.
The definition depends on who is saying it.
Within mainstream US politics, Republicans use “liberal” as a catch-all pejorative for any person or group further to the left of themselves. It is usually aimed at Democrats but could also refer to Greens, communists, etc.
The irony is that, in a broader political context, Republicans are very much liberals, too. People outside the US political mainstream who sneer about “liberals” are usually referring to this larger group, which basically encompasses the capitalist status quo in the “western” world.
It means “anyone who doesn’t immediately agree with anything I say/repeat” in magaspeak.
I think OP’s question is about why parts of the Democratic coalition are hostile to other parts of the Democratic coalition, not about why Republicans are hostile to Democrats.
If a self-proclaimed “part of the Democratic coalition” is dismissing whatever arguments you make by weirdly comparing you to John Locke as a slur, chances are they are they are not, in fact, part of the Democratic coalition. The fact that they are borrowing their slurs from the conventional fascists should be telling enough.
They might even share employer.
I think that even the people who are just as bad as you say are also part of the Democratic coalition simply because both they and I will be voting for Kamala Harris in November, although they will be doing it while complaining a lot. I’ll be complaining a little because I’m never going to support any candidate 100% but my ideal candidate would still be a centrist Democrat.
With that said, I’m not sure how long this coalition will hold together because I would rather vote for a centrist Republican than for a leftist. Right now the Republican party is the one dominated by its extremists but if they return towards the center (Trump won’t live forever) and the Democrats shift left, a lot of liberals will be reconsidering their political alliances.
I have seen people argue that they will never vote for Harris, because she’s just part of the same rotten establishment etc etc. Mostly from the same people who use liberal as a slur. They seem to be very loud around here.
I might be ignorant though. Have anyone established/respected in the circles around Sanders/the Squad used the term “liberal” in a similar sense? Or is it mostly by faceless folks online?
Those people were never voting for any democrat. Regardless of who was chosen.
The people I’ve seen who use “liberal” as an insult have also stated they will explicitly not vote against trump. They give ‘reasons’.
The fact that these ‘reasons’ parallel russian troll farm talking points exactly is merely a coincidence.
I think you should give them more credit than that. There are, for example, real leftists (not trolls) who are extremely hostile to liberals due to disagreements about Middle East policy but still intend to vote for Harris.
I would be happy to. If they’re voting for Harris, let ‘em in, I say.
Because something that gets lost in the two party system is that, at its core, there’s the conservative side trying to make things best for their majority group and then there’s a dozen different types of liberals trying to make the world better in their direction. One side wants to revert back, one “side” is pulling in a hundred different directions. Should we tackle education first? Financial responsibility? Human rights? Social safety nets? Pollution? Climate change? National interest? Global interest? There’s so many different topics that liberals want to progress forward in an order each individual determines. It’s not a single liberal force, it’s a hundred forces in a trench coat. Conservatives (of any country or topic) are some kind of incumbent majority/dominating demographic while the alternatives all fall under “liberal”. So the only thing that consistently unifies the democrats is what they don’t like
the only thing that consistently unifies the democrats is what they don’t like
Opposition to Trump is currently the strongest force uniting the Democrats, but I think there’s more dividing the Democrats than just a disagreement about which issues to prioritize.
For example, someone who prioritizes abortion rights usually also supports protecting the environment and vice versa. Most abortion-rights people and environmentalists agree about what the ideal end state is (both goals accomplished). However, someone who supports affirmative action and someone who opposes affirmative action may currently vote for the same candidate but they’re clearly opposed to each other in a way that the abortion-rights person and the environmentalists aren’t. The distinction between liberals and leftists is useful for describing many disagreements of the second sort, and it’s an important distinction because the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans won’t always cut across the same issues it does now.
Funny how it means the same thing in .ml instances.
Using liberal as a derogatory says far more about the person saying it, than it does about those they say it about.
My advice is to not take them seriously.
^ perfect answer, IMO.
It’s an insult in the US because the liberals in the Democratic party are considered to be on the right side of the political spectrum. Today’s liberals are seen as pushing the same stuff Republicans were pushing in the era of Reagan and Bush. Progressives in the party don’t really get much of a voice therefore they disparage the liberals that keep pushing the Overton window further and further right.
This is really just factually inaccurate though. Modern US liberals are actually further to the left than they were during the bush era, and are nowhere near as far right as the bush administration. (not sure about Reagan because that was before my time but I suspect it was similar). Democrats during that era were just coming off of the very centrist Clinton administration, and have gradually been moving left ever since.
The difference is the people criticizing liberals have become much more numerous and moved much further to the left than core democrats. Which is largely a good thing but I think it would help them be more strategic if they actually understood these things clearly.
Genuinely useful. I keep getting called a liberal online as a slur whenever I discuss politics, mostly by the accounts of people who could very well have been on a Russian payroll but are probably just deranged.
I was wondering what the fuck they were on about.
Those types are fun. If pressed on LGBTQ issues, you’ll see the “progressive” front start to crack
Gotcha, so it means fake leftists almost? Does it imply someone is even further right than a current “centrist”? Or more like, “the center is right wing at this point, and so much so that even the Dems who are just left of center are still on the right [but therefore less than centrists still]”? This is not meant to be obstinate, your response was just very helpful and I want to bracket in on where folks consider liberals to be on the political spectrum so I can understand/use it properly.
You might look up the term “neoliberalism” as I think there is a lot of overlap with the information you’re seeking and those who would be called liberal perjoratively.
Neoliberalism is itself a postliberal framework that rejects many central tenets of classical liberalism.
Or “tankie”
Nah tankies are just people who push pro-China and pro-Russia propaganda. I haven’t even ever seen one of them actually talk about communism.
Sigh, I’ll wade into this river of shit.
Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.
Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.
Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.
-
too much freedom.
-
not enough freedom.
(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gait that makes you remember Indiana Jones films
(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.
Doesn’t the problems of the free market also fall in problem 1? The free market has been shown to not actually be self regulating, which is a sign of too much freedom.
Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.
Do you want to expand or you just speak in memes?
I think I misunderstood you.
See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.
Agreed. That’s why we try to create a legal framework to begin with.
deleted by creator
freedom means occasionally you have to fight to defend that freedom and what it means to you. the stability of neoliberalism lulls the masses into placidity and complacency
I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.
Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.
Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.
I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.
Freedoms often clash.
One guy might say he has the FREEDOM to play loud music any hour of the night. Everyone else might say they have the FREEDOM to sleep at night.
People who talk about freedom above all else often, to me, come off as selfish.
Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism
By whom?
… everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don’t even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.
Hmm, everyone I know, including very left leaning liberals I know who live in Hollywood, use liberal to represent actual liberal ideologies. They use Liberal (notice the capitalization) to represent neo-liberalism.
Edit: verbally they always specify “neo” if talking about neo liberalism.
To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?
Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?
If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.
We mostly discuss social issues, and not economic policies. You sound like you know way more about this stuff than me, so I believe you.
Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.
Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?
If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.
What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.
-
Basically it says to me “Fuck your for being/showing/reminding me that you are smarter/more informed/more reasoned/more compassionate than me!”
Same applies to “woke”.
It’s how it’s said that speaks volumes.
I’ll never understand how “woke” became the word they fixated on to use as an insult. So the opposite is being asleep? Slept? Like, you don’t want to be awake and aware?
I’m not really into this stuff, but from what I can tell, liberal became an insult purely because conservatives wanted to label liberals as inferior. That’s about it. Some leftists also use liberal as an insult, though to a lesser extreme.
How conservatives use it, liberal means someone that is too sensitive, accommodating, weak, and evil (especially in Christian terms).
How leftists use it, liberal means uneducated, hypocritical, insufficient, and turncoat/traitor.
So when self-proclaimed leftists use as a slur it’s not even in relation to support for private property rights?
I guess, if you’re a proper communist, you could use liberal as a category of leftists who don’t want to abolish property rights. As for the far right crowd, it could be a slur for anyone who doesn’t want to abolish all other rights.
They use bougie for that
Phil Ochs says it better than I can:
In every American community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects, ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.
The issues have changed slightly from the 1960s, but his song’s accusations of hypocrisy and NIMBYism among those who publicly espouse progressive causes still hit close enough to home.
I think a big part of the problem is that liberalism dates back to the 17th century, and western civilisation is kind of built on top of it.
As a result it could fit pretty much anywhere on the political spectrum. I consider myself pretty leftist, but of course I’m a fucking liberal. I take issue with inheritance and I believe in taxing billionaires out of existence, but that’s completely consistent with liberalism. And so is disagreeing with me.
I guess a central thing about liberalism is refusing patriarchalism, which would explain why the stalinists and the trumpists alike get upset by it.
Ahh that’s interesting, so the issue is as much having a conveniently shifting position as it is a further-right-than-progressives static position. Thanks a ton, that helps me understand a lot!
Basically liberalism tends to be capitalist, whereas leftism tends to be anticapitalist. Historically, there’s been a pattern of centrists and capitalist allying with authoritarians and fascists against leftists, so the insult boils down to “you’d support a fascist before you went against capitalism”
A brief rough history, in case anyone is interested:
17th century: Kings and shit. The people supporting the rule of the king are in power. They become conservatives.
18th century: Liberals appear. They believe men have certain inherent rights from nature. They don’t dig kings, but they do believe in private property. They sit to the left in parliaments, the conservatives sit to the right.
19th century: Marx gives us his take on history and labour. Liberalism is given a competing framework from the left.
20th century: All kinds of shit goes down, partly because the conservatives and the liberals are terrified of the Marxists and give the fascists the keys to the kingdom, partly because of a Marx-inspired Leninists take control in Russia. The “new” left (socialism) becomes a major force in the postwar era, promising to build a new world on the ashes of the old.
21st century: There seems to be a head on collision. People feel strongly about these concepts, but it seems many have forgotten where they come from or what they mean. Disinformation campaigns have gotten efficient. Green politics enter the field.
Leftism, as it has been represented on Lemmy, also doesn’t usually have a path forward other than seizing weapons and goods and magically reforming everything through the miracle of revolution. So in one sense, kind of worse than useless if one were attempting to affect positive change.
Anyone who thinks a revolution without a very solid, well researched, and peer reviewed plan is a good idea is an accerelationist at best.
That being said, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. Eventually the powder keg will blow, and the way things are I don’t think we’ll have a single modicum of control.
Inspired by Phil Ochs, updated for 2023.
The epitome of Shit Americans Say.
Never in real life though, only on The Intertoons.
I’ll go more general, any label can be a insult. In spoken language you can hear it in the tone, the pitch, and the slurring of the word. Spoken with hate.
The normal rhetorical method is to use a extreme caricature of the opponents ideas and misapply the label, use it in derisive context… and overtime it becomes a commonly understood insult.
example: Those damn pescatarians! They are so focused on the sea they cannot see where they stumble on the land! Bloody navieish pescatarians.
Sounds like just about the kind of argument a filthy literate like yourself would make.
Call me literate one more time, to my face, and see what happens!
This comment and response elevated this discussion. I’m still laughing.
There are a lot of solid answers, but it’s good to remember that the US definition of a liberal, seems to be very different from the international definition. So, remember to keep context in mind, and whether it’s coming from an American or not.
As a non-American with political science training, I think this is key to why I have found this particularly baffling.
It’s like if you were having a casual conversation about pretty much anything and some overgrown child suddenly jumps in and starts screaming you’re a filthy deontologist. Like, uhm, sure, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant, and I also somehow doubt you know what that word means.
Deontology is bankrupt as an ethical philosophy tho
Haha, yeah - the deonthology hating child in my example came across as a little more reasonable than I perhaps wanted it to.
That said, I’m kind of a fan, even though I agree it’s morally bankrupt. Most of my moral thinking revolves around making up excuses for Kant.
Most of my moral thinking revolves around making up excuses for Kant.
As it is for all good-hearted people.
Why liberalism and leftism are increasingly at odds, written by a liberal. (Note that by “SJL” he means modern American “social justice leftism” as opposed to earlier leftist movements more focused on economic class.)
SJLs and liberals have some interests in common. Both are “culturally liberal” on questions like abortion and gay marriage. And both disdain Donald Trump and the modern, MAGA-fied version of the Republican Party. But I’d suggest we’ve reached a point where they disagree in at least as many ways as they agree. Here are a few dimensions of conflict:
SJL’s focus on group identity contrasts sharply with liberalism’s individualism.
SJL, like other critical theories that emerged from the Marxist tradition, tends to be totalizing. The whole idea of systemic racism, for instance, is that the entire system is rigged to oppress nonwhite people. Liberalism is less totalizing. This is in part because it is the entrenched status quo and so often is well-served by incremental changes. But it’s also because liberalism’s focus on democracy makes it intrinsically pluralistic.
SJL, with its academic roots, often makes appeals to authority and expertise as opposed to entrusting individuals to make their own decisions and take their own risks. This is a complicated axis of conflict because there are certainly technocratic strains of liberalism, whereas like Hayek I tend to see experts and central planners as error-prone and instead prefer more decentralized mechanisms (e.g. markets, votes, revealed preferences) for making decisions.
Finally, SJL has a radically more constrained view on free speech than liberalism, for which free speech is a sacred principle. The SJL intolerance for speech that could be harmful, hateful or which could spread “misinformation” has gained traction, however. It is the predominant view among college students and it is becoming more popular in certain corners of the media and even among many mainstream Democrats.
As a self-idenitied liberal, I think this is about right. He also talks about how and why the conflict in the Middle East has caused the recent increase in hostility but I’m not going to quote the whole article.
I respect Nate Silver’s analysis when it comes to polling but I don’t think his divisions of the modern left make a lot of sense. Frankly, I think the left wing is way too fractured to make these types of generalizations about. He’s accurately describing at least some people on the left. But what proportion of the progressive/far left coalition does this actually apply to? To me it seems to be just one faction among several.
Perhaps I am biased because I don’t really fit into the categories he has outlined, nor do most people I know. But it seems like a huge oversimplification (and a mildly demeaning one at that).
Silver’s descriptions of what I think and of what the people who disagree with me appear to be thinking seem correct to me, but of course I know myself better that I know people who disagree with me. I think it would be interesting to have a leftist post about the division from his side’s point of view.
I think that the idea of “liberal” as an insult is driven by the conflict between these two factions, but I’m not claiming that they are the entirety of the Democratic party. There are others, such as organized labor and religious socially conservative black people, who nonetheless reliably vote for the Democrats. I’m curious about what group you would say that you belong to.
Very helpful, thank you!
Leftists have always despised liberalism - and for pretty damn obvious reasons for anyone that has a basic understanding of what left and right actually means. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology that upholds capitalism, colonialism and white supremacism, all while having a recurring habit of enabling and supporting fascism at the drop of a hat when the precious liberal order is threatened by change from below.
So yeah - as far as leftists are concerned, the term liberal is as much of an insult as the term fascist is. There is even an old leftist saying, “kill the liberal inside your head” which sums up pretty nicely what leftists think of liberals and liberalism.
Liberalism is just letting people do what they want so long as it doesn’t interfere with letting people doing what they want
Support gay marriage? That’s liberal.
Support corporations paying people 30¢ per hour for 18h workdays? That’s liberal.
Support people having access to HRT and abortions? That’s liberal.
Support people owning guns? That’s liberal.
Support unrestricted immigration and trade? That’s liberal.
The problem is it doesn’t fit in with the US definition of “left” and “right” - it’s economically far right but socially far left, and most Americans just cannot understand that
Liberalism is only considered “left” in the US because it the republican party is too far right and there’s only 2 parties.
I was going to try to explain it then I made the mistake of reading the complete insanity in the comments. Think I’ll just move on. Hopefully you get your answer.
Liberalism is a right wing ideology, which because America is so right shifted is seen as left in their country or at least a counterpoint to conservatism when they’re basically the same thing - deregulate, don’t tax, “free market” capitalist nonsense that’s destroying the planet.
So from a left wing perspective it’s a derogatory term. Most leftists take on a more worldly understanding, so even American leftists will use it this way.
As for American right wingers, they’re just using it for hate. I doubt they could even explain who they mean.
deleted by creator
