Unpopular opinion:
Alienating liberals doesn't create more leftists, it only causes people to be dismissive of the term and dig in their heels.
Insulting them rather than educating them does nothing but divide anyone left of center and after the last election I think it's abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
No one is going to argue that left leaning candidates aren't far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the far-right fascists were about to have in power in less than 2 weeks.
Yes, I agree modern liberals are too centrist and ineffective but at the end of the day they're light-years ahead of the far right, and I'd rather be agitated about having another centrist administration than alarmed and outraged at the onset of fascism.and if somebody wants to know where that character is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moomins
I'm not sure I'm politically knowledgeable to know what a liberal is
(This is a joke, and I don't need anyone to explain it to me. The thing I struggle with is discerning whether the people I'm talking to at any given point know what a liberal is)
Patience was a virtue.
I gave up on this conversation years ago.
Fine, for the sake of argument, I’m a liberal, because I don’t want to give you 45 extra minutes of my time in this comment section to try and explain the difference when I know you’ll ignore most of what I say anyhow, and derail us from the point I was actually trying to make. If I’m a liberal in your mind, so be it. My point stands.
It also makes sens, if you're not knowledgeable on politics, your reasoning might rather resemble a philosophical one.
And philosophically speaking the basis of liberalism could means both left or right wing values depending on the philosopher.
For exemple Kant's philosophy was based on rational individuals to wich giving positive rights would permit to govern themselves. It also means laws would be universal wich would create equality. You can see how this could be compatible with some anarchist ideas or more generally with democracy.
In communism you would also have those positive rights. But you would also justify interventions to protect those rights, against lack of resources for instance (although that's outside of Kant's scope).
In the contrary, Lock's ideas is negative rights to protect people from the government and each other. Guaranteeing things like property. And ultimately wanting freedom. Thus giving the right wing liberalism it mainly refers to today.
Furthermore it's the basis of capitalism. Which, if i'm being honest, is mostly what's implied by liberalism when it comes to the economy, although i would argue against. With how defective capitalism is you could argue protectionism should be wanted by liberals to prevent all thoses monopolies we see everywhere. In this instance we could see a part of liberalism that tend more towards a leftist idea.
Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.
