A Liberal is like a chameleon constantly changing his color to match any popular trend. He seems to be all things to all people without ever taking a strong stand on anything, except what he does not like at the moment. He will wave the flag when advantageous, site the Constitution when convenient, but will always be steadfast in the political philosophy of ambiguity.
A quick paste definition of Liberal is as follows. Note, if you will, the absolute lack of conviction and the steadfast position on ambiguity. Being a Liberal has a great deal in common with the alphabet. Within the 26 letters all things can be said, but of itself, it says nothing.
"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
-- noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform."
Is it possible the problem lies in the terms "progressive" and "progress"? As in "The changes I want are considered progress, while the ones you want are evil" without ever actually saying it?
Can you say "spin"? "Spin it for all we're worth using unspoken connotative values and hope the people are too stupid to catch what we're doing?"
Most anything is possible and yes, all things are by definition as to meaning and value. And, I would say that meaning and value are again by definition of the individual based on a perspective or comfort zone, regardless of the group
You speak of stupid people and would you care to identify them? I would also ask, what are we doing that these folks may not grasp?
The opening question was pretty straight forward. Would you care to reply.
Those that fall into the trap of thinking any change is beneficial whether it is or not. That believe "change" = "progressive".
If you mean "we" as the liberals, ruining the country financially. They are slowly dismantling free enterprise and the economic system that grew this country into what it is and replacing it with a nanny state where no one is responsible for themselves.
Only as a very general, very simplistic definition. I'm not much into labels, particularly political ones of people, because few people fit very well into them. Nevertheless:
Liberal: A political viewpoint that includes general freedom...except in financial matters, where the government is responsible for support and maintenance of the individual. The "now" is far more important than the future, and the liberal will hock our children's lifestyle to improve that of the people now. Financially, the people now are seen as little more than full wallets to empty with the liberal claw and then distribute it and lock people into a lifetime of dependency on government for the very bread on their table.
Conservative: A political viewpoint that includes responsibility of the individual and general freedom...except in religious and moral matters where government knows best and must forever keep both in the far past instead of "progressing" ( ) and growing into the future. Religiously and morally the conservative lives in the past, where society ruled the individual with an iron fist.
Between the two evils, I (usually) find the conservative preferable. That iron fist has become a pillow as more and more people resist a national religion and their morals have slowly broken free of ancient religion and grown closer to what they should be. I expect that to continue regardless of who is in power, although a conservative power base will slow it some. The liberal claw, on the other hand, is increasingly strong and demanding as people find they can vote themselves freebies and will either be curbed quickly or the country will go the way of those in Europe that have followed the nanny state concept and are now failing miserably. Government is responsible (or should be) of maintaining and growing the country; individuals are responsible for maintaining and growing themselves.
What is needed is a combination of the two: an understanding that the wallet of the individual is not free for the taking and that individuals are free to choose for themselves even in moral and religious matters. A compromise of the two ideologies is also necessary: some charity is needed for the good of the country but not the total support the liberal offers nor the almost non-existent amount the conservative would give.
by ahorseback6 hours ago
Not the sensationalizing "face -book " mentality of todays mainstream news media . Once , there was a time when selling the headline was the profiteering, business method of...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by awesome776 years ago
What political philosophy do you think Jesus would lean towards? A careful look at his teachings point to him been conservative on personal responsibilities. Feel free to speculate if JESUS would be a conservative or...
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
by James Smith3 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end,...
by Will Apse6 months ago
When I visit the UK I have a choice of two newspapers that I can live with. One is the impeccably liberal Guardian, the other is the solidly conservative Telegraph.I must admit, if I am feeling tired or at a low ebb for...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.