So define 'Liberal' for me.

I'm obviously confused.

You see to me 'Liberal' means socially progressive and non-discriminatory, someone who's in favor of economic equality and the Labor movement, someone who believes in democracy and accountability to the electorate, a person who values courage and accuracy in reporting.

In the Orwellian Newspeak of the current climate 'Liberal' seems to mean pay lip service to cultural issues while exploiting Identity Politics and never, ever taking actual action (Black Lives Matter, Immigration, Islamophobia, Global Warming, Gun Control).

It means someone who favors the accumulation of obscene wealth, corporate monopolism, and the reduction of workers to Industrial (to the extent we still have any industry to speak of) Slaves in competition with the most miserable and exploited Third World slum dweller subsisting on pennies a week.

It means someone who thinks it a galling inconvenience to even pretend that voters matter and does everything possible to hide any agency from the public while pocketing legalized bribes.

It is people who are for the most part vapid airheads who can't read anything except a teleprompter and who's only discernible job qualification is that they're telegenic (that is except for the ones who are deliberately evil liars).

'Liberalism' is not putting your faith in buildings full of faceless technocrats of no particular merit, expertise, or success who got their jobs because of accident of birth, pedigree of schooling, or both.

Those now calling for Corbyn's resignation as Labour Leader are almost uniformly the very same Blairite, New Labour, Neolib hacks who hated the fact that someone with actual Left attitudes who believes that Labour is about improving the condition of workers and the poor instead of abject toadying to City Banksters got democratically elected in the first place instead of one of the fakes the MPs wanted to win.

There's already a party in Britain for that. It's called the Tories.

(Of course it's cross posted from The Stars Hollow Gazette and DocuDharma)

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

Cocktail liberals? Volvo liberals? Neo-liberals?

I agree your your original what-you-thought definition. Wink

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

TOP. I commented I could easily see Hillary going full-blown Brownback.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Thaumlord-Exelbirth's picture

If so, I agree. She may be more subtle about it though, and line up puppets to be the scapegoats when things go horribly for us, and great for her masters.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

Doug Henwood, on Hillary Clinton's tenure in the Senate:

What Hillary did do was make friends with her Republican colleagues. While ideologically dubious, it did have the long-term benefit of softening potential opposition to her future campaigns for the presidency. As Daniel Halper (a smart, nonrabid conservative) writes in his recent book Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine:

I spoke to many, if not all, of Senator Clinton’s biggest opponents within the Republican Party during her time as First Lady. On or off the record, no matter how much they were coaxed, not one of them would say a negative thing about Hillary Clinton as a person — other than observing that her Democratic allies sometimes didn’t like her.

She buddied up to John McCain and attended prayer breakfasts with right-wingers like Sam Brownback of Kansas. She befriended Republicans who had served as floor managers of her husband’s impeachment. Even Newt Gingrich has good things to say about her.

up
0 users have voted.

“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris

Brownback...heh.

But, I am sorry for TOP that they are trying to push out another true voice. They need all the help they can get, I just don't have the stomach for them anymore. I tried for a long time, and felt like a deserter for awhile, but I'm over it now in no small way thanks to c99%.

I look forward to seeing you more often.

up
0 users have voted.

'Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years, Doctor, and I’m happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd "

enhydra lutris's picture

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

that money has to come from somewhere. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they buy you off, and water down your movement till it is no longer a threat to the power structure.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity forever

"We have to do something about that! (case closed)" "I told them to cut it out"

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

up
0 users have voted.

On a par with "compassionate conservative" though "Clinton liberal" is probably more oxymoronic since its theoretically possible for a conservative to be compassionate.

up
0 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

for such people is Champagne socialists.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

The suckers? Those concerned who have investments that took a small hit with Brexit?

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

We were at the lake last week. Weather was sunny and in the 70s. Beautiful. Heading up again Thursday for the 4th. Have five 20 somethings coming up (2 grandsons & friends) to watch the fireworks out over the bay.

I can tell you what a liberal isn't. It isn't Kos the paid mercenary and his Hillarybots in their pink pantsuits cheering for Hillary in the "Hillary Hangout". Words don't mean a damn thing. Remember Bush's Clear Skies legislation that allowed more pollution and green house gases into the atmosphere? I think to get close to the meaning of liberal today you have to say socialist or pinko commie.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

during the Brexit campaign. He was against Brexit - but failed to rally Labour against a xenophobic referendum lead by the right.

The Blair types are out for blood - but Corbyn in some ways handed them the knife.

up
0 users have voted.

Did you read Greenwald's article on Brexit?
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-t...

Or gjohnsits?
http://caucus99percent.com/content/brexit-fallout-elites-lash-out

Anything that pisses off the global elite can't be all bad. racist is quite the scapegoat and strawman nowadays

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Just nonsense.

This was an effort driven by the far right UK IP. Why some on the left in the States think this was a good idea is beyond me. Virtually no one on the UK left did.

In this case this was racist, down to Farage's picture in front of potential immigrants - most of whom were POC.

up
0 users have voted.
ChemBob's picture

but it was a reaction that wasn't all driven by racism. Greenwald covers it quite well.

up
0 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

The EU has essentially become a tool of neoliberalism. The treaty of Lisbon is an unchangeable constitution that precludes deficit spending to get out of recession. The bureaucracy in Brussels is foul and largely an unelected agent of corporate interests. There are majorities in favor of leaving the EU in several EU countries according to polls. The EU, while once a good thing, no longer works for its people, and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for fixing it. While Frarage and UKIP are certainly in favor of severely limiting immigration, and I find them repugnant, the analysis that one often sees is terribly simplistic. There were, in fact, surprisingly large number of members of racial minority groups that voted for exit. On the other hand, few seem to have thought this through and much of the analysis is still shallow and there are obvious, looming problems. If Scotland leaves the UK, for example, will there be a hard border between England and Scotland? If not, immigration restriction is impossible. If so, will people really accept passport checks to cross the border? Likewise, will there be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? There are lots of tough decisions to be made.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

They have, what, one seat in Parliament now?

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-...

Panic now! Avoid the rush!

up
0 users have voted.

“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris

enhydra lutris's picture

can & do err, but so do plutocrats and other elites.

up
0 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Roy Blakeley's picture

Corbyn delivered the labor vote for remain:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/corbyn-leader-brex...

The rebellion is pure Blairite oportunism--the British equivalent of the DLC, except a little smarter and considerably nastier

up
0 users have voted.

Hell, I really don't have a grasp of the British political all parties. Seems most labels are used to mean the opposite of what they mean.
My wife's brothers and sisters are hardcore RWNJs. They accuse me of being liberal. I explain being free to destroy the earth and ravaging our economy to hoard commodities rendering them unusable for the masses no matter how many are killed or forced to live a life of destitution is the height of liberalism.
I say I'm a conservative who feels if you keep the world nice it'll continue to give. You keep the workforce happy and healthy they'll continue to produce great product. Pay a decent wage and they'll create more demand for the product keeping the wheels of commerce and the economy rolling.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Hillbilly Dem's picture

both the 'old' definition and the sad, but true, "new" definition.

up
0 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Cassiodorus's picture

Neoliberalism is what defines our era, no?

up
0 users have voted.

“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris

gulfgal98's picture

I have written seven essays on it over the last several weeks, nearly every week on the Wed. Open Thread. And I plan on continuing to write about it for a while yet. Bottom line is neo-liberalism is all about directing all money and resources to the corporations and the wealthiest. It is an economic ideology not far removed from Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is closely related to neo-conservatism. The two ideologies often work hand in hand. Hillary Clinton is both a neo-liberal and a neo-conservative.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

darkmatter's picture

neoliberal = mostly related to the economic sphere (less regulation, offshoring, privatization, tax cuts) and

neoconservative = mostly related to foreign policy (originally, conservatism was isolationist)

I could be wrong. But if this is accurate, then yes, Hillary would be both neoliberal and neoconservative. But is she Neo? Only Morpheus knows for sure.... Smile

up
0 users have voted.
featheredsprite's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

darkmatter's picture

Liberal = neoliberal in economics with some window dressing, deferential to power, in favor of some civil rights once the ground is cleared by others, not for explicit theocracy, willing to use drones

Progressive = social-democratic in economics, willing to do hard work on civil rights, critical of power, not for theocracy, not willing to use drones

Conservative = neoliberal in economics with no window dressing, skeptical of civil rights for "others," for theocracy, willing to use drones, bombs, and invasion

Libertarian = a conservative who doesn't want to go to church on Sunday

up
0 users have voted.

but you aren't one of them.

You've always been consistently unconfused.

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

think and say they are liberal's or 'progressives' but I guess the definition is up for grabs. There seems to be no scale left for left, center, right. You get to self identify with positions and stances that are created by the lying pols and their strategist's of mass deception. My neighbor who is sort of liberal says he's a Democrat in theory. I think he's a FDR liberal .He is more opposed to the evil right wing then enthusiastic about what the Democrat's have become. 'The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handle.' It is confusing when 'liberals' tell you to embrace the suck as it's inevitable.

As for the pols themselves they cast themselves ideologically to the demographic that most likely will support their mendacity. My definition of liberal is ek's. Up is down and both sides are just freaking evil. No liberal's in sight and if a pol actually is liberal they are immediately denounced as extremist rotten Dr. Commie Rat's. The term I resent the most besides 'progressive' which always seemed to be a term used to avoid the L words, is moderates. WTF is moderate about setting the world on fire and imposing punishing austerity on humans. The bankster's rule the world and being poor is a crime. We came, we saw, we killed is not moderate, liberal or progressive.

up
0 users have voted.

The quotation below is from the publishers introduction to Graham Harman's book "Bruno Latour: Reassembling the Political"

In his early days, Bruno made a major contribution to Actor Network Theory that is widely used on social sciences.

Graham Harman is a young philosopher who has brought Bruno Latour's work to the philosophy community and many other areas.

Here are a couple of paragraphs which have other stuff about Bruno and the book and other stuff, but the term Truth Politics and Power Politics might be useful to you.

Yet there is a different polarity in modern political theory, one that cuts across the Left/Right distinction and is also of far greater relevance to the political theory of Latour. I speak of the difference between what we might call Truth Politics and Power Politics. I have already mentioned Rousseau and Marx as exemplars of the Left version of Truth Politics: the truth is basically already known, but is prevented from becoming reality by various social, economic, or ideological obstructions. Yet there are also Right versions of Truth Politics, as found for instance in the teachings of Leo Strauss. Here Socrates is interpreted not as someone who seeks the truth without finding it, as the name philosophia suggests. Instead, Socrates already knows the truth: that humans are not equal, but are arranged in a permanent hierarchy of types that transcends all historical context. Philosophy is dangerous for the masses, yet philosophers must conceal this fact with coded writing and esoteric signals, convincing the masses that they are normal patriotic and religious citizens in order to avoid the fate of Socrates himself. But this elitism is merely the reverse of the supposed egalitarian truth, since both think the truth is already known to some smaller or larger group. This sort of Truth Politics has nothing at all to do with the thought of Latour, who completely forbids any direct access to a “truth” that might trump the uncertain struggles between competing actors.

Power Politics also comes in both Left and Right flavors, though it is perhaps more common on the Right. For Hobbes, nothing can be permitted to transcend the Leviathan. To appeal to a religious truth beyond the edicts of the State, or even to a scientific truth beyond such edicts, is to risk a bloody civil war of all against all. Transcendence is therefore forbidden. In the case of Schmitt, politics begins only in the sovereign’s decision that it is no longer possible to reason with one’s enemy, so that an existential struggle commences. We see Left versions of this Power Politics in various postmodern theories that dispense with the category of truth altogether. While Latour is naturally allergic to any form of Truth Politics, he remains permanently tempted by Power Politics, and fights these temptations for the remainder of his career. The young Latour shows open delight in defending the claims of Hobbes and Machiavelli, in erasing the purported distinction between Might and Right, in admiring a hypothetical Prince who would not just destroy or manipulate his human rivals, but would successfully arrange gas, water, and electricity lines as well. This early phase, in which Latour broadens Hobbesian politics to include inanimate beings alongside humans, ends in his 1991 classic We Have Never Been Modern. When Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer claim that the power of Hobbes outstrips the truth of scientist Robert Boyle, Latour suddenly intones: “No, Hobbes was wrong!” This is not because Boyle was right instead, but because both Hobbes and Boyle are wrong— by reducing the world either to Irrefutable Right or Irresistible Might. Both truth or power are employed by turns to efface the always uncertain play of political networks, in which rhetoric and proof, strength and weakness, all stand on the same footing.

From
Between Truth and Power: Latour’s Political Philosophy

Here is another article by Graham Harman on the book

On the State of Nature Hobbes saw life as nasty and brutish, while Rousseau argued humans lack inherent differences in power and strength. A better framework for understanding division in modern politics: Truth Politics versus Power Politics.

up
0 users have voted.
darkmatter's picture

I'm glad to see someone else who is reading Graham Harman. He is a very rare bird, an American philosopher engaging in prima philosophia and acquitting himself very admirably with his Continental interlocutors. I get the sense that he perceives more distance between himself and "the left" than I perceive in myself, but his work is stimulative to thinking, and there is no greater accomplishment than that in his field. I'm glad he made it out of Egypt in one piece....

up
0 users have voted.
darkmatter's picture

the root of neoliberal is "liber-" which is Latin for "free."

But so much of neoliberalism requires the strong arm of the state to direct the flow of profits in the intended direction (through privatization, trade agreements, etc.). So while we can import toxic toys from China, we can't import safe prescription medication from Canada. As they say, the free market isn't free. Maybe that is the meaning of "neo" in this term; the liberal economic idea was a market operating independently of the state, and the neoliberal model requires the state to be what it is. Corporations, remember, are legal entities that governments allow to be created. There could be no corporate sector without a state backing it up. Please someone correct me if I'm off here.

So when a neoliberal starts singing from the hymnbook of freedom, even that needs to be immediately challenged as a distortion of reality.

up
0 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

Good point darkmatter. Neoliberal theory (which I do not subscribe to, but at least has a certain coherency) is used to justify domination by large corporations and maximization of the appropriation of surplus value by said corporations. However, they just pick the bits they like, the bits they can use to justify the maximization of profit, and ignore anything that is inconvenient.

up
0 users have voted.

In Nixon Agonistes, Garry Wills does a remarkable job of tracing the parallel threads of the two main US liberal traditions -- one manifested in the Rockefeller Republicans, the other manifested in the New Deal Democrats.

Much of what you've described as liberalism (as you once thought it) is more properly labeled, in the American tradition, as progressivism, or populist progressivism, or progressive populism, or some such.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

We (meaning me for the moment) sometimes construe emotional meaning in new, fancy words like neo-liberalism. A mere construct of the mind. It's irrelevant in my world.

up
0 users have voted.

Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. Stephen Hawking