Eric Alterman - "Liberal" Is Not a Bad Word

[cduck88]

Most people who identify as a conservative adhere to a classical liberal position, one of small government, free markets and protection of individual rights, i.e. gun ownership, unfortunately some American's have turned the term liberal into something completely opposite it's true meaning for various political reasons.

[Zendout1]

True, Liberal is not a bad word--IT'S A DIRTY WORD

------also, Liberals and patriots --just doesn't work as a tittle

--the two things are opposites

Nowadays, Liberals are the oppressors, the extreme

--anyone who disagrees with them is ruthlessly silenced

--they even go after your family

Alterman talks about liberals decades ago as if thats still the same crowd today

Nowadays, they should be described as Retaded Liberal Zombies

[Teapartyla]

Liberal is a bad word because the people they think are stupid have them pegged. Why is liberal a bad word? Because of 60 years of evidence of social propaganda. Once they were called out as liberals, they changed it to progressive, which is the same thing. LMAO!

[Mrparrot73]

This is stupid. Words change their meanings with time and location. They evolve. In my country of India, a liberal is actually someone who believes in cut throat capitalism. Liberals are the extreme right in India. The liberals in India are also accused of being jingoistic in their patriotism. In India, a conservative is actually a left winger.

So just like the same word means different things in different countries, it means different things in different time periods. Argue abt real concepts.

[allegrobas]

Liberals/progressives/socialis­ts/leftists/humanists---they are all loons and nothing more. They change their labels to suit their schemes. Run away from them as fast as you can!

[Jowind]

The man needs to go away. I think he needs to live in a different country. Hes done enough damage to this one. Let him damage somebody else's now.

[modifiedcontent]

"TheClassicalLiberal" makes my point for me; socialists coopted liberalism. Liberalism in America has nothing to do with real liberalism. Everywhere in the world liberalism means capitalism and liberty. Yes, the Founding Fathers were liberals, they were NOT socialists or "progressives". Centralization of power in the state and personification of the state in a leadership cult is NOT liberalism!

[TheClassicalLiberal]

Yah, liberal has turned into a bad word. I keep getting attacks from self proclaimed conservatives over my name about how liberals are stupid and corrupting this country, even when it isn't even relevant to anything I said. There's a certain, religious rhetoric about many conservatives. I don't even think conservatism is bad as a fiscal policy, just as an intrusive social policy.

[modifiedcontent]

Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

[TheClassicalLiberal]

Yah, and many people also believed we would have cities on the moon by now or that humanity would have destroyed itself in nuclear by now too depending on if they were an optimist or a pessimist. Yah, we may have medicare, but that's a hard cry from communism. A moderate amount of socialism is just making the tax system work for the tax payer. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of thugs in DC handing out our money to contractors while falsely parading it to the public as free market capitalism.

[MarxBakuninMe]

The Founding Fathers were liberal progressives.

[Libertarian71776]

no they are not. founding fathers of progressives were Wilson and FDR. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, etc were for constitutional size govt and that means SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENT. read some more writing of the founders, maybe start with the federalist papers. try reading John Locke and Hobbes since they were highly influential during the enlightenment period.

[TheClassicalLiberal]

The founding fathers weren't one monolithic group. There was a lot of variation in opinion among them. If the founding fathers were all neo-Libertarians, then they probably would have kept the country a confederacy. As a whole, they weren't all moral. To begin with, they only wanted white, male land owners to vote. Luckily that was changed very gradually over time. A lot of founding fathers were slave owners and killed Indians too. People act like they were Jesus or something. They weren't.

[Libertarian71776]

where in my comment did i say they were all identical? or angels? nowhere. I know my history when it comes to the founders, im well aware of the social climate during that era. The founders were also aware of social changes over time, they were kids once too you know. this why they created an amendment system. they knew slavery will be eradicated eventually, and the 3/5 compromise was a small battle the abolitionist won.good night.

[ftjax]

you who consider yourself "well-to-do" or even rich are you so hardened that you say.... "I'm so greedy I owe no one

anything...even taxes too." You should feel fortunate to have accumulated wealth

& live in a country that allows you to do so"

[fedorvonbock16]

you fucking liberal fuck you pig

[johnjacob771]

I live here in SF, and liberal are lieing scumbags

SF is the most racist and sexist city i ever been in

I lived out here 3 years now and these liberals are full of shit don't be fooled these ppl are haters

[raney150]

I could say the same about the majority of my town. Which is conservative.

[quest8899]

We are in essence a liberal and progressive country. Majority of Americans identify themselves as either liberal or progressive while conservatives are closed minded.

[raney150]

However we are more conservative than most developed countries.

[DANxCHORIN]

Alterman is living in fantasy-land. He thinks he can call himself a 'progressive' or a 'leftist' but still supports the tyrannical two-party system? What a joke.

Alterman spews pseudo-intellectual garbage to marginalize the man who has done more for the progressive movement than anyone in history: Ralph Nader. Alterman is ridiculous.

[ferrozm]

Fuck the american people if they think they have the right to steal from those who have earned it the most. And they wonder why jobs go over seas?

[amharris09]

Eric Alterman is a major D-bag he is a whiny bitch. Go Nader

[FoxmanPhD]

US Opinion on Abortion:

1st Trimester: 54% think it should be legal: a majority but not a very large one.

2nd Trimester: 66% think it should be illegal: a fairly substantial majority think it should be illegal.

3rd Trimester: 84% think it should be illegal, almost unanomouse that it should be illegal.

The Liberals position on Abortion is very out of touch with America.

[raney150]

abortion is only one of many many issues. The liberals also want universal health care. Many Americans agree with that.

[tikitak]

Wow he lies a lot. I dont want UHC, I dont support abortion, I don't want higher taxes on the rich. The rich employ the middle class, why kill the golden Goose? Britains largest drug company is moving to Ireland for one reason; They get 28% tax in UK, and 12.5% in Ireland. DUH?? Guess what, the rich dont have to stay in America if they dont want. He wants communism and thats sick, we all know it doesnt work, why be for it?

[raney150]

True, we don't need higher taxes on the rich. What we need is a universal tax for everyone.

[TheClassicalLiberal]

As idealistic as that is, most economists agree that progressive taxation is the only policy that will work at this point. Under better economic circumstances, I'd be fine with a proportional tax that charges the same percentage for everyone. We need to elect a government that will properly consolidate the national debt and has a better fiscal policy before that happens. It shouldn't be any easier for a rich person to avoid prison than a poor person. I'm for proportional legal fees too.

[TheClassicalLiberal]

Even if they take like 30% of 100 billion from some punk who inherited their money from their daddy, they still have 70 billion dollars left over. That 30 billion could go to ensure that less fortunate people get fed. Think charity will help the poor get out of poverty? Hell no. Just look at South American countries. They may get the occasional Unicef package, but they're not going anywhere in terms of leaving their poverty laden socio-economic status. The rich want them poor. ...More for them

[Libertarian71776]

You call yourself a "classical liberal" ? your comments do not fit the definition. what i am reading is class warfare talk. you should stick with the label "progressive" since "fascist" and "socialist" hurts the lefts feelings.

[skajellafetty]

@Libertarian71776 - I'll call you "Moron" since you have no clue what you are saying. a fascist isn't a socialist in the terms used by the right!! you are purposely confusing people. Don't even think of trying to draw a comparison of fascism to today's standards of "socialism" (communism - what u think it ultimately means)

[NGS712]

Hell, I'm surprised that open warfare wasn't broken out on this video.

Maybe there's hope afterall. ;)

[Whoo69]

Americans are still, at least a small majority (about 55-60%), in favor of keeping Roe. Only the pro-life extremists in the special interest groups and political circles dare advocate repealing it and then completely banning abortion. Most Americans are AGAINST Bush nowadays. They also want out of Iraq. Almost half are for gay marriage. All this anti-tax crap is a ruse. Most Americans don't really make such a big deal out of taxes; they just pay them and get on with their lives.

[Whoo69]

Even Abraham Lincoln, the guy the Republicans LOVE to talk about with that old moniker "the party of lincoln", was quite liberal, at least with today's standards. He would never have supported Bush. Jefferson, a leading founder, was staunchly against elitism and aristocracy. His Democratic-Republican Party, which eventually became just the Democrats and then Jacksonian Democrats, was quite liberal. The Whigs and Republicans represented big business even then, like they still do today mostly

[Whoo69]

Eisenhower may well have been a moderate or liberal on quite a few social issues as well. Adlai Stevenson was not made out to be a 'communist' when he ran against Ike. Eisenhower even called himself a "right liberal" (right meaning "correct", I guess). Americans were more Democrats in that age than Republicans. Wilson, a man who represented liberal promotion of peace and freedom abroad (NOT neoconservatism, which calls for military action), was reelected. FDR and Teddy served many terms.

[Whoo69]

We elected LBJ officially over Barry Goldwater, the first officially conservative candidate. If Americans are really as 'constitutionalist' and anti-big gov't as the GOP loudly proclaims, why did they reject barry in a landslide? Of course, some claim that "america just wasn't ready". Ok, but then why did it take 16 years to elect Reagan, unless we were inherently liberal on many areas and had to 'change'? And Reagan's presidency really wasn't very right-wing in terms of action taken.

[Whoo69]

The Religious Right and Republican Party's economic divisions have so dominated politics for the past 28 years or so that Americans don't really realize how liberal they are. While there are a lot of conservatives, there are also quite a few people who are left or center-left, but they just don't realize it. Many of them buy into the religious fundie crap by the religious right or the anti-tax nonsense of the GOP, and they forget who they are. We in Missouri overwhelmingly support stem cells.

[Whoo69]

Many polls have come out claiming that most Americans want universal health care. Polls have come out saying that Americans are not nearly as fundamentalist or conservative socially as the Right makes America out to be.  We're more middle than anything, and America has ignored its liberal side far too much. In the 1950s, when Americans were in touch with liberalism, the Republicans nominated Eisenhower over Taft, a very conservative isolationist Republican. Eisenhower was econ. liberal.

[Birdtrooper]

5*s but I still refuse to classify myself as liberal or conservative, I just will not relegate myself to being an ideologue who has to fall back on a shaky, speculative religiosity or who falls in & jumps on the band wagon whenever the party shifts like a pathetic herded lamb eager to be part of he club. Even if there were a hypothetical political party purely based on espousing truth / knowledge then although I'd technically be a member of that one, I'd still be reluctant to label myself

[Birdtrooper]

Damn it, I didn't mean to make conservatism & or liberalism out to be political parties. Oh well, they're synonymous enough & serve the same function as their associated parties so eh. Damn, and now I notice that I said "be part of he club" with a typo neglecting the t in [the] but eh only stupid pedantic D-bags will care to bitch about it as if it's not clearly a typo but I'll just acknowledge it preemptively anyway. I guess I'd be more ashamed to [still] call myself a conservative out of the 2