To most Americans (including myself before reading into it due to Lemmy) Liberal is simply a synonym of ‘left-wing’ and has no distinction at all from that and other terms like ‘leftist’, ‘progressive’, etc. All of these terms mean exactly “not conservative” - mostly in a social sense.
My (weak) understanding is that outside the US, Liberal is a (mostly) economic position - specifically one supportive of capitalism, which both major parties in the US are. (With slight policy differences.)
To be more specific on the capitalism front, liberals generally support a well-regulated market which also has safety nets like welfare. As opposed to positions like neoliberalism which supports As opposed to positions like neoliberalism, which supports laissez-faire markets and opposes welfare.
Liberalism in America refers to social liberalism. IE: justice, government management of social services(health, education, welfare, infrastructure). In this scenario, the government looking after its citizens.
Liberalism in the rest of the world refers to Neoliberalism. IE: capitalism on a pedestal, privatization of public services, limited government intervention in all areas(business, labour, environment, health, education). In this scenario, private business and “the free market” determine what is and isn’t good(IE profit is the greatest good).
Liberal in the UK definitely doesn’t mean neoliberal
Not entirely no.
"
Scholars primarily use the term to refer to classical liberalism.
British liberalism is now organised between two schools;
- the social liberalism of the Liberal Democrats (member LI, ALDE) and their counterpart the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (member LI, ALDE),
- and the classical liberalism of the Conservative Party which was adopted in the late 1970s by the late former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_Kingdom
Neoliberalism is a more contemporary version of classical liberalism
That over-simplifies the definition of neoliberalism, and the contested nature of definitions of that term. It also ignores the differences between the liberalism that Thatcher claimed and her actual policies (although I’m not claiming that Hayak, for example, wasn’t part of the then-current definition of liberalism), particularly her social policies.
I promise you, despite what Wikipedia claims, if a British newspaper were to refer to a liberal politician, they would not include Thatcher and Johnson.
Firstly, the social aspect of the term liberalism is more prominant than the economic. And secondly, it would be rare in the modern age to see it applied to Hayakian economics as opposed to Keyensian.
Neoliberalism, as a term, is to liberalism as Libertarian is to liberalism. They share a root and you can point to similarites, but once you scratch beneath the surface they aren’t all that similar and have important areas of opposition.
Nope. Some political parties use it as neoliberal but ordinary people don’t.
Liberal (US): a moderate conservative.
Liberal (EU): a moderate right libertarian.
Your whole political spectrum is from right to far right to us. There is no liberal or left at all.
If you think that, then you don’t know much about our political spectrum. Or—more likely—you’re just trolling.
Wow. First, no I’m not trolling. But we have a bit more open view in Europe. You’ve just got all corporate control with a lot of propaganda in the US. If you’re open to it, I invite you on research on countries with more than 2 (and even almost identical) parties and without backing of the rich.
Yes I might be off about your spectrum, but the last deeper research I read was that over the decades your two right wing options narrowed down even more and by now they’re indistinguishable (for the common folk. Of course it would be better not to have trump but you have more political issues than that).
Considering our political spectrum includes both democratic socialists that model their politics off of European leftist examples and actual communists who think China is a good model to follow, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about.
OK name one party on the left that you could vote and would count?
I am only aware of dem and rep.
And then compare it to 5 parties like this https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/plenum/sitzverteilung
So now I gave examples. Show me where you think there’s more than one or two parties being on the right side.
Wait, let me rephrase that. Please help me understand what I am missing, honestly. There’s just two parties who have any chance.
Political spectrum isn’t just about political parties. The two parties in the US don’t represent the full spectrum of political opinions in the country. If you want to understand that, you’re going to have to dig deeper.
OK, I think we don’t understand each other because the spectrum is not represented (to the voter) at all in the US and you can only choose between two parties on the right. If you ignore that it’s not me needing research.
Look. I linked you the German parliament. We vote parties in there and they’re actively participating in the law making process there. They’re on our voting ballots.
Please tell me how you can vote for anyone else than dem and rep in the US. That was what I was talking about. Since (afaik) that is not possible you only have access to get a right party into the legislation.
And also to be clear this is not about looking down on the US. We have other huge issues here, too.
If you vote Democratic, you’re getting a far better version of leftist politics than the GOP. No, it’s not ideal leftist politics, because Dems are still beholden to US megacorps, and that is definitely a problem. But you can’t assert that because voting options are limited, political will is restricted to those options. The U.S. is undergoing a major political problem right now, which may well result in the dissolution of both parties and a broader multi-party system. You can’t just point to a country’s political parties and say, “well, they have only those two options, so they’re locked in forever, and those two options represent the entire country’s political will.” That’s ridiculous. There’s much to be said about the rise of far right politics in Europe right now, but you wouldn’t endorse opinions that the EU is trapped between far-left and far-right politics, would you? No, most people have views that register in-between. The same is true in America. We’re not so different from you. Stop pretending otherwise. We’re all human and we’re all part of a global civilization.
In the broader world of politics, “liberal” usually refers to “classical liberalism”: representative democracy, a capitalist market economy with limited government involvement, and an emphasis on individual liberty over communal well-being. This is the ideology the US was founded upon (for white people, at least) and that it still largely embraces. Both major US political parties are liberal parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Within the US, the use of the term is very different. Republicans use “liberal” as a pejorative to describe anyone even slightly to their left. You could be a progressive, a social democrat, a communist, an anarchist, or simply a pragmatic individual who wants to fund libraries and public schools, and you would be branded a “lib.”
One difference is that U.S. liberals are still likely to believe in American exceptionalism.
Americans almost universally believe they are fundamentally the best - moral leaders of the world, even if they have temporarily lost their way.
The great protest folk singers from the U.S., such as Woody and ArlonGuthrie, the Seegers, and so many others, feel that they’re fighting the good fight to bring the U.S. back to where it was meant to be: the ‘leader of the free world.’
It’s an infectuous ego that taints the U.S. psyche on a deep and profound level.
The term originally meant things like free market economies, being able to vote, implementing civil liberties like ending slavery and serfdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Modern day it has different meanings depending on which country you’re talking about.
In Portugal the liberal party is a right-wing party ± socially progressive. But economically very right wing. So a liberal in Portugal is perceived as someone probably well off and urban.
They don’t use the word “liberal” to define whatever American liberals are supposed to be (not too xenophobic imperialists?), they don’t use the word at all tbh. Idk if it’s an Anglo thing or a particularly American one, though.
