Can you be too "liberal"?

Do you have a paper due tomorrow?

Absolutely. One of the problems I have with libertarianism is that it over assumes that people will be able to look after themselves and will look after others. But they don't.
Some people are jerks. Some people are criminals. There have to be rules.
there's always a trade off balance between freedoms and securities. Human society has been fluctuating between the extremes for some time. Neither anarchy or totalitarianism works out too well for people.

Well you know what they say about too much of a good thing.

The problem with liberalism is the not wanting to take responsibility for ones actions. liberals tend to blame other people and things rather than themselves. A moderate or conservative says "what are we ourselves doing wrong" whereas a liberal says what "OTHERS are doing wrong". Liberals tend to prefer things that don't have consequences, or if they do, to get rid of the consequences. Like abortion and contraception. In a liberals eyes, the death of an unborn baby is worth avoiding the "consequences" of pregnancy. If that is true, then most liberals deep down do not truely value the dignity of human life or equality as they claim and are no different than a moderate marxist. Their wanting to indoctrinate our children in public schools shows their marxist slant on life. Which is scary. What is interesting, is that it was the "liberals" who wanted to keep black slavery legal. While the conservatives(the whigs) wanted to abolish it. While the outside of a liberal may look ok, when you get in the inside and to the soul of how they really think, it is pretty scary. They are very anti-family anti-human values when you get to the core of things.

stan1980 said:

So can you be too liberal, or is being too liberal being a soft touch?

Click to expand...

You can't be too liberal, but you can misapply or misinterpret the tenets of liberalism.

For example, it's important to note that being a liberal doesn't mean that you think no one should be imprisoned. I am a liberal; I believe that people are, in fact, products of their environment and their upbringing. I believe that 99.9% of people in prisons are "damaged" in some way by their past. And because of that, I do not believe that prisons need to be retributive. However, I still believe that if there is someone who puts the general public at risk of personal injury then they should be kept in a secure place. I also believe that we need to find the best balance between deterring people from committing crimes, and treating them with respect.

I think that one can be too anything if being "too" something implies blindness to reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's hard to say because we use liberal to mean several different things, even if we are isolating one type of liberalism (social liberalism seems to be the theme in this thread).

We can pin down tenets of liberalism that have to do with teaching as opposed to retribution, protecting people from abuse rather than allowing the abuse and expecting people to tough it out. Acceptance of and respect for different cultures. Those are mindsets.

But we also use liberal to describe certain specific beliefs, regardless of why a person holds that position. Believing that abortion should be legal is considered a "liberal" position, for example.

So, if one were to hold all the "liberal" sides of various arguments, people would probably consider that person liberal, without any thought given to why they hold those beliefs. They could hold them for completely non-liberal, conservative, or just plain evil reasons.

The MA Supreme court is a great example. They were called "liberal" when they interpreted the constitution to mean that same-sex marriage must be allowed. Two thirds of the justices, though, were appointed by Republican governors, and the reasoning behind their decision was distinctly conservative. Are they liberal just for being on the "liberal" side of a fence, even though their mindset was conservative?

So, back to can a person be "too" liberal? I think real liberalism is in the mindset, not the position, so I say no. A person can never have too much respect for another. It is never wrong to meaningfully consider all sides of an argument before coming to a decision, and it is never wrong to search for the good in somebody, so long as you take reasonable precautions against endangering society.

But, as it is possible to hold "liberal" positions, without having a liberal mindset, it *is* possible to appear too liberal. A person who supports abortion rights because he hates children, is not liberal. Neither would he be liberal if he wanted to mandate abortion for all but select people.

So when our society treats liberalism like little more than a constellation of positions in arguments, yes it is possible to believe those things, and take them way too far.

But I don't think that's what liberalism is, and doing that violates the beliefs of real liberalism.

PetersKeys said:

The problem with liberalism is the not wanting to take responsibility for ones actions. liberals tend to blame other people and things rather than themselves. A moderate or conservative says "what are we ourselves doing wrong" whereas a liberal says what "OTHERS are doing wrong". Liberals tend to prefer things that don't have consequences, or if they do, to get rid of the consequences. Like abortion and contraception. In a liberals eyes, the death of an unborn baby is worth avoiding the "consequences" of pregnancy. If that is true, then most liberals deep down do not truely value the dignity of human life or equality as they claim and are no different than a moderate marxist. Their wanting to indoctrinate our children in public schools shows their marxist slant on life. Which is scary. What is interesting, is that it was the "liberals" who wanted to keep black slavery legal. While the conservatives(the whigs) wanted to abolish it. While the outside of a liberal may look ok, when you get in the inside and to the soul of how they really think, it is pretty scary. They are very anti-family anti-human values when you get to the core of things.

Click to expand...

You do realize how biased and chock-full of ad hominems your response is, don't you?

Mling, that's exactly what I wanted to say but failed - you are so on a roll at the moment!

PetersKeys said:

The problem with liberalism is the not wanting to take responsibility for ones actions. liberals tend to blame other people and things rather than themselves. A moderate or conservative says "what are we ourselves doing wrong" whereas a liberal says what "OTHERS are doing wrong". Liberals tend to prefer things that don't have consequences, or if they do, to get rid of the consequences. Like abortion and contraception. In a liberals eyes, the death of an unborn baby is worth avoiding the "consequences" of pregnancy. If that is true, then most liberals deep down do not truely value the dignity of human life or equality as they claim and are no different than a moderate marxist. Their wanting to indoctrinate our children in public schools shows their marxist slant on life. Which is scary. What is interesting, is that it was the "liberals" who wanted to keep black slavery legal. While the conservatives(the whigs) wanted to abolish it. While the outside of a liberal may look ok, when you get in the inside and to the soul of how they really think, it is pretty scary. They are very anti-family anti-human values when you get to the core of things.

Click to expand...

Is that the sort of stuff they teach you in Sunday school? Just wondering. That´s such a bunch of nonsense, so many mistakes in every single sentence that I wouldn´t even know where to begin correcting them.

stan1980 said:

For example, I've often thought in the past a local thief, thug or hooligan could do with a proper good beating to sort them out, but a liberal hippy would say that we should look at the reasons they are acting anti-socially, and help them through non-violent measures. It's hard to argue against that to be honest.

Or someone might say prisons are there for punishment or deterrent and shouldn't be so comfortable. Recently in a prison over here there was some sort of security breach, and all of the prisoners could have simply walked, but because they have TVs, cable and satellite in their rooms, easy access to drugs and life is comfortable, not one person left. This caused uproar amongst the public, saying prisons should be tougher, but a liberal would say prisons should primarily be for rehabilitation. Again, personally I can't argue.

So can you be too liberal, or is being too liberal being a soft touch?

Click to expand...

I´m not sure that the spectrum of "liberalism" is well covered by these examples that are both taken from the field of punishment.
I personally would see the essentials of liberalism somewhere else, and I guess the typical American use of the word is entirely different, again.

That said, I am the sort of "liberal hippy" who advocates to look deeper into the issues, to see the manifestations of violence in the context of the entire society, and to solve the problems where they actually are located - instead of evading to quick and dirty (and predictably ineffective or even counter-productive) crisis management.

Regarding the second example my opinion is that imprisonment is
a. for protection of the rest of society
b. for education.
Since I generally don´t think it is a good idea to intentionally inflict harm on persons (like in incarcerating them) but unfortunately in some cases can´t think of a better way to protect the rest of society, I would also advocate best treatment of our prisoners.

the more I read these politics thread, the more I think that many in the right wing have an understanding of the word liberal in the same way creationists understand evolution.

"A monkey gave birth to a pineapple? That's just crazy."

So you mean liberals really *do* want to release all sex offenders from prisons and let them live in the basements of elementary schools?

That's crazy!

So if what you say is so hard to argue against, why is it that liberals all want Bush to be beaten and hung, rather than helping him through non-violent means.

KarateCowboy said:

So if what you say is so hard to argue against, why is it that liberals all want Bush to be beaten and hung, rather than helping him through non-violent means.

Click to expand...

Not all liberals want that. I certainly don't.

HannahBanana said:

Not all liberals want that. I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

You're right. Not all want him hung and beaten. Others want him tarred, feathered, and set on fire.

KarateCowboy said:

You're right. Not all want him hung and beaten. Others want him tarred, feathered, and set on fire.

Click to expand...

And the majority of liberals (not the crazy radical nutjobs) just want Bush out of office.

Being neo-liberal at all is being too liberal; it shirks personal responsibility and in the name of allegedly finding the deeper and more profound they merely look for excuses as opposed to looking for reasons.

Liberalism makes people feel essentially helpless and removes the blame from the people who often commit crimes, as Stan pointed out. These are the sort of people whose solution for drug addiction is giving them more drugs at sanctioned methadone clinics, the sort of people who keep encouraging a class war mentality amongst the people of the world.