-people who have declared themselves "always right" and therefore anybody who dares to disagree with them as "always wrong"
-freaks who crave power sooo much that they take an "we're always right and you're always wrong no matter what you say" position,thus negating all debate (see dictators )
^Just like "the BORG" on Star Trek who's motto is "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE"
noun - Any person who is liberal, as desribed above
Of course Mike wont vote for Bush; he's a liberal.
Although I do not like to generalize, for the purposes of a (somewhat) concise dictionary definition, here is the very basic liberal (American sense) ideology:
The federal government exists to protect and serve the people, and therefore, should be given sufficient power to fulfill its role successfully. Ways in which this can be accomplished include giving the federal government more power than local governments and having the government provide programs designed to protect the interests of the people (these include welfare, Medicare, and social security). Overall, these programs have helped extensively in aiding the poor and unfortunate, as well as the elderly and middle class.
To make sure that the interests of the people are served, it was liberals (or so they were considered in their time) that devised the idea of a direct democracy, a republic, and modern democracy. This way, it is ensured that the federal government represents the interests of the people, and the extensive power that it is given is not used to further unpopular goals. Liberals do not concentrate on military power (though that is not to say they ignore it), but rather focus on funding towards education, improving wages, protecting the environment, etc. Many propose the dismantling of heavy-cost programs such as the Star Wars program (no, not the film series), in order to use the money to fund more practical needs.
As one travels further left on the political spectrum, it is noticed that tolerance, acceptance, and general compassion for all people steadily increases (in theory at least). Liberals are typically concerned with the rights of the oppressed and unfortunate – this, of course, does not mean that they ignore the rights of others (liberals represent the best interests of the middle-class in America). This has led many liberals to lobby for the rights of homosexuals, women, minorities, single-mothers, etc. Many fundamentalists see this is immoral; however, it is, in reality, the most mature, and progressive way in which to deal with social differences. Liberals are identified with fighting for equal rights, such as those who wanted to abolish slavery and those who fought hard for a woman's reproductive right (see Abortion). Liberals have also often fought for ecological integrity, protecting the environment, diversity of species, as well as indigenous populations’ rights. Almost all social betterment programs are funded by liberal institutions, and government funded social programs on education improvement, childrens’ rights, womens’ rights, etc. are all supported by liberals. Basically, social liberalism is the mature, understanding way in which to embrace individual differences, not according to ancient dogma or religious prejudice, but according to the ideals of humanity that have been cultivated by our experiences throughout history, summed up in that famous American maxim: “with liberty and justice for all.”
Using the term ‘liberal’ when speaking of economics is very confusing, as liberal in America is completely opposite to the rest of the world. Therefore, here, as I have been doing, I will concentrate on the American definition of liberal concerning economics.
Liberals believe that the rights of the people, of the majority, are to be valued much more sincerely than those of corporations, and therefore have frequently proposed the weakening of corporate power through heavier taxation (of corporations), environmental regulations, and the formation of unions. Liberals often propose the heavier taxation of WEALTHY individuals, while alleviating taxes on the middle class, and especially the poor. Liberals (American sense) do not support laissez-faire economics because, to put it simply, multinational corporations take advantage of developing countries and encourage exploitation and child labor (multinational corporations are spawned from laissez-faire policies). Instead, many propose the nationalization of several industries, which would make sure that wealth and power is not concentrated in a few hands, but is in the hands of the people (represented by elected officials in government). I am not going to go into the extreme intricacies of the economic implications of privatization of resources, etc., but will say that privatization and globalization have greatly damaged the economies of Latin America, namely Argentina and Mexico (see NAFTA).
This summation of the leftist ideology may not be 100% correct in all situations, as there are many variations on several issues and I may have depicted the current definition of “liberal” as too far to the left than it is generally accepted.
On that note, many leftists are critical of the political situation in America, claiming that the left is now in the center, as the general populace has been conditioned by institutions such as Fox News to consider “everything left of Hitler” (as one clever person put it) as radical liberalism.
I, myself, have observed that, in America, there are two basic types of liberals: those who concern themselves only with liberal policies on the domestic front, and either ignore international affairs or remain “patriotic” and dedicated to the “American way” (Al Franken, Bill Clinton, etc.)
And then there are those, despite the criticism they face from many fellow “liberals” (classified under the former definition), who are highly critical of US foreign policy, addressing such issues as Iran-Contra, the Sandanistas, Pinochet, Vietnam, NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, our trade embargo on Cuba, etc, etc. (such as Noam Chomsky, William Blumm, etc.)
Unfortunately, it seems that adolescent rage has run rampant on this particular word, and most definitions are either incoherent jumbles of insults and generalizations or deliberate spewing of misinformation (see the definition that describes the situation in Iraq, without addressing our suppression of popular revolts in Iraq, our pre-war sanctions on Iraq that have caused the death of some 5 million children, and our support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and even our post-war sale of biological elements usable in weapons to Saddam’s regime).
I am a liberal; I believe in equal rights for all, fair trade, compassionate foreign and domestic policies, and diplomacy instead of war.
2. Those who have abandoned logic and reason, and rely on 'warm fuzzys' as a sound basis for the making of decisions.
3. Avocates of policy that empowers a strong federal government to enslave its people with the high tax burden incident to the support of extravagant and unnecessary (not to mention unconstitutional) social programs destructive to both the work ethic among the lower class, and the incentive to innovate and succeed among the upper class. In effect: To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)
4. Hypocrites who deride members of the religious right for 'imposing its religion' upon them. Ironically, also guilty of trying to impose its religion upon the religious right... just bitter because the religious right, nation wide, still holds the majority. (Hey, morons: Every law is an imposition of someone's morals on someone else. You're just mad that its not your morals that are being imposed!)
5. Moral elitists who look down with disdain upon the traditional values and faith in the Creator that made this nation the greatest in history. They view those who hold to The Faith as unenlightened and unsophisticated, those who 'just don't get it'.
6. Hypocrites who preach tolerance of all, then openly mock and ridicule Republicans/Christians, deniers of global warming, and others who disagree with them.
They preach environmentalism as they criss-cross the nation in private jets, limos, and SUV's, and pay thousand-dollar electric bills for their multi-million dollar mansions, all while preaching the new national religion (a concept they also claim to oppose) of environmentalism with its apocalyptic 'the-sky-is-falling' global warming BS.
They advocate equality and freedom of choice for all, yet they advocate the progressive tax structure that punishes and takes freedom from those who've succeeded. Yet they favor discrimination against white males whom they blame for all of societies' ills (like driving minorities and the lower class to lives of poverty and incarceration), and avocate affirmative action which furthers the racial discrimination that they claim to have fought to end.
They claim to advocate the elimination of poverty, yet vehemently oppose teaching people how not to become poor: WORK HARD, GET AN EDUCATION, AND KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED TILL MARRIAGE. (Look it up. It really is the way to eliminate poverty...)
They hold steadfastly to the constitution, holding sacred the Bill of Rights, while decrying the two rights that guarantee all of the others: The rights to freedom of the press (McCain-Feingold act, and the fairness doctrine) and the bearing of arms (all gun control).
Opponents of the death penalty for those most deserving of death, advocates of abortion of those most deserving life.
Liberals often refer to themselves as 'progressives'. This is, however, an inaccurate term, as liberalism does not lead to progress. It only tears down time-honored traditions and proven institutions like the family, democracy, faith in God, self-reliance, personal responsibility, hard work, and other things that make our nation great. Liberalism advocates a return to the primal, the carnal, the primitive, the calling of evil good and good evil, and therefore is not progressive. A more accurate term might be 'regressive'.
Liberals come in several variations:
Hollywood liberal: A celebrity who lives a trite, meaningless life in a drug-induced haze of casual sex, infidelity, and amorality, changing spouses like designer shoes, who then lectures the rest of us on what's right and wrong.
Also a member of the Hollywood elite that produces films, music, and tv that portrays the US to the world as a violent, greedy nation of oversexed hedonists with plastic boobs (see Baywatch, Beverly Hills 90210, Desperate Housewives, and other popular American fare airing throughout the world in film and syndication) and then blames George Bush and the Republicans for making the world hate us.
Wine and cheese liberal: (Often synonymous with "Hollywood liberal") Liberals who fly their private jet to town and show up at an event in a limo, while wearing designer clothes and expensive jewelry as they associate with other liberals, bemoaning the miserable quality of life around the world, AIDS, poverty and global warming, the fact that the French hate us, and blaming Americans (or specifically the Republicans) for causing it.
See Bono, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins, Madonna, etc...
Poor Liberal: A liberal who sits on his couch all month waiting for the welfare check to come. Claims to be unable to find a job or uses "I'm holding out for a management position" as justification for being unemployed for five years while his wife is out bringing home the bacon.
Poor liberals always vote for candidates who'll show the most 'compassion' to the poor, as they know that 'compassion' is lib-speak for 'welfare'.
Other poor liberals rely on 'compassion' to feed the six kids they had before the age of 21 with six different fathers. They can't rely on the fathers because they're all in prison. They aren't held responsible, because, wine-and-cheese liberals say, it's not their fault. It's the white man's fault for being rich, thereby making them poor.
Still other poor liberals eagerly await the day when they will receive repairations for the injustice of slavery that their ancestors endured, claiming outwardly that that fact alone entitles them (having never been enslaved) to a free ride, while inwardly looking for a way to subsidize a life of laziness and thereby avoid having to work for what they get like the rest of us.
Smart liberal: There is actually no such thing as a smart liberal. The term is an oxymoron. Smart liberals only think they're smart because they work in a university (they work at universites because they're not smart enough to get jobs in the private sector). This is generally speaking of course, as there may actually be one or two somewhere.
Bill Clinton: Not necessarily liberal or conservative, he just parties with liberal chicks 'cause he knows they'll put out. (Such behavior explains, therefore, his advocacy of abortion rights.)
Other types exist, however they really aren't worth mentioning.
"ummm... like.... I'm totally for pro-choice..." - Jewel