Political Discussions Threads: Definitions

[the captain]

Updates made. Forgive the delay, I've been avoiding this place because it has mostly sucked and made me feel like calling people mean names, which I'd rather not do. (Not the fine folks who participate in threads like this, of course, including those with whom I disagree in threads like this. You're a-ok.)

[Emily]

He's back!!

[SMiLE Brian]

The captain of awesome!

[bluesno1fann]

Should add small "l" liberal. Small l liberals are socially progressive, considered fairly left wing - while capital L Liberals (such as the Liberal Party) are considered to be conservative and right wing. At least it's like this in Australia, not sure about the rest of the world

[Emily]

Should add small "l" liberal. Small l liberals are socially progressive, considered fairly left wing - while capital L Liberals (such as the Liberal Party) are considered to be conservative and right wing. At least it's like this in Australia, not sure about the rest of the world

That's an interesting complication: two very different definitions of "liberal" (common usage and historical usage) and a third definition for 'Liberal'.

[bluesno1fann]

Should add small "l" liberal. Small l liberals are socially progressive, considered fairly left wing - while capital L Liberals (such as the Liberal Party) are considered to be conservative and right wing. At least it's like this in Australia, not sure about the rest of the world

That's an interesting complication: two very different definitions of "liberal" (common usage and historical usage) and a third definition for 'Liberal'.

Well, I should also add importantly (which I forgot) that small l liberals are socially progressive, but supports free trade economics. They also distrust unions, as do the capital L Liberals

[Emily]

Should add small "l" liberal. Small l liberals are socially progressive, considered fairly left wing - while capital L Liberals (such as the Liberal Party) are considered to be conservative and right wing. At least it's like this in Australia, not sure about the rest of the world

That's an interesting complication: two very different definitions of "liberal" (common usage and historical usage) and a third definition for 'Liberal'.

Well, I should also add importantly (which I forgot) that small l liberals are socially progressive, but supports free trade economics. They also distrust unions, as do the capital L Liberals

Absolutely agree on small 'l's. And take your word on capital 'L's in Australia.

[Emily]

Here's something that provoked me to think quite a bit. From an article on Vox:
_____________


In 2004, Daniel Okrent, the then-ombudsman of the New York Times, wrote a famous piece with the headline, "Is The New York Times Liberal?" The first words of the article? "Of course it is."

Okrent’s actual argument, as Rosen reminded me in our conversation, was more interesting, and more nuanced, than the headline. What Okrent really wrote was that the New York Times was staffed by New Yorkers, that it emerges from a "tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment" and reflects those values.

The newsroom’s liberalism isn’t the economic liberalism of Ted Kennedy but the social liberalism of anyone who enjoys walking around Manhattan at night. It’s no accident that the sole issue Okrent examines at length in his column is same-sex marriage.

I have worked in a number of newsrooms, and I know writers and editors in many, many more. There’s no mainstream newsroom I know of that is uncompromising in its advocacy for single-payer health care, or that has launched a longtime crusade for more foreign aid. If anything, the press tilts toward deficit hawkery in its economics and a (deserved) skepticism of governmental competence and honesty in its instincts.

But the national press is undoubtedly cosmopolitan in its outlook — it is based in New York and Washington and Los Angeles, and it prizes diversity, tolerance, pluralism. Within newsrooms, these ideas aren’t seen as political opinions but as fundamental values. There is no "other side" worth reporting when it comes to racial equality, no argument that needs to be respected when it comes to religious intolerance or anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

___________________

I think some of the fuzziness of recent political definitions: progressive, conservative, is clarified here. Traditional definitions were mainly based on economics. But recently 'liberal' has taken on a bunch of meanings to do with cultural issues, as has 'conservative,' which muddies the waters somewhat. I also think the parties have strongly realigned based on cultural issues.

I like the idea of maybe 'cosmopolitan' and 'provincial' entering as labels for collections of cultural views, so that the traditional terms can return to something approximating their traditional meanings.