Why Unhappy People Become Liberals

daisypusher wrote: SC, I do believe you are being insincere. You could research this subject if you so desired and for all I know you have.

Based on your post it seems you have embraced the dictionary definition of liberal.

[urlhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:liberal&sa=X&ei=uv7uTLS6JISingeQ2-WSCg&ved=0CBMQkAE][/url]

Which supports the statement I made in my previous post.

Please consider what "tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition " means over time. Once it meant "an economic system based on private property uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit". This was when peoples moved away from authoritarian/Monarchy type governments. Thus, the classic classic liberals were our founding fathers.

The next round of "change" that adopted the liberal moniker was the social liberal/fascist movement(s) in the early 20th century. Some suggest the basis for which started in the later 19th century. Do not be turned off by the "f" word when you consider that economic system:

"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[12], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[13]" (Does this sound familiar? It was easy to quote Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

This later round of liberals believe there is an unjust inequality of power/wealth that leads to a less-than-equal liberty and has become focused on developing a theory of social justice or more equal outcomes - thus social liberals (a completely different animal).

So, both groups are dictionary liberals (change/progressives) but have much different ideologies as related to the "progressive" thought of their respective times. It will be interesting to see what liberals will be like in another hundred years of change.

It is easy to ignore the history of social liberalism (failures of socialism/fascism/communism) when a person can embrace being a dictionary liberal and reap the psychological reward/ignorance of being an ultimate progressive. Perhaps you are more of a classic liberal than you think.

dp, I most certainly was not being insincere. I do not presume to know what you are thinking and answer for you; hence, I ask. Contrary to popular belief, I am not that smart - I do not have all of the answers, nor have I researched everything. And definitely not of a history of a political label which has become contentious over the last 100 years. I was curious to see what you knew that I didn't and hoping to engage you in a fun back-and-forth. I'm happy to see that one has occurred while I was offline and I really don't have the energy to add anything more right now. I will say that it doesn't really matter to me what the long-ago history of liberalism was; I care more about what liberalism is today and how I identify with it. I was recently a Democrat too, but wouldn't have been one of those had they had the same ideals as the party did during the Civil War so I guess I just don't see what the relevance is. When I said "classical" I didn't mean "historical" and maybe that's where the misunderstanding lies; either way, thanks for your answer.