Progressives are against it as can quite clearly be seen by the responses from Bernie Sanders, AOC, and other progressive (liberal) politicians.
Centrists and Conservatives seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the it’s a complex issues and if you question Israel than you must be racist against Israelis.
The whole thing is frustrating, and we need to do better than blanket labeling “liberals bad” here because it reads really wrong…
Schumer also called for Netanyahu’s resignation two months ago.
When all but three House Republicans introduced a bill to sidestep Biden’s pause on arms, 16 out of 213 House Democrats offered support. That’s hardly support of liberals.
Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Lois Frankel (Fla.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Frank Pallone (N.J.), Mary Peltola (Alaska), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), David Scott (Ga.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.)
Make note of their names and vote them out regardless, but stop with this party division nonsense and recognize that there’s an entire party that wants to see Gaza and Rafah nuked and paved.
Liberals are not inherently progressive or leftist in the least. They are rightist-enablers who value their means over the inevitable ends. At “best” they are “enlightened centrists” who are willfully ignorant about the consequences of their actions, and at worst zealously dogmatic about their sacred middle-of-the-road fallacy.
These are not merely politicians… they are regular people who have been trained to turn a blind eye to hoarding, power consolidation, and overt abuse of others. That is liberalism.
Liberal is opposite conservative in defining economic policy legislation in political ideology. Libertarian is opposite authoritarian in defining social legislation. The middle is considered centrist.
A Liberal shares support for social freedom and liberal economic policies with a progressive, but sits between progressive and centrist.
There are absolutely Democrats in Congress that fall into the category of centrist. Referring to them as liberals is simply inaccurate. Once seated, politicians no longer get to define their own political ideology. It’s determined by their legislation and voting record.
Your second paragraph is correct, but the first one is just regurgitated right-wing propaganda, spread as a weak attempt to shift the Overton window rightward☹️
That’s how I was taught to identify political ideology in Poli-Sci class. The right wing is on the line between conservative and authoritarian, where the left wing is on the line between liberal and libertarian. Libertarians (capital L) are on the line between libertarian and conservative.
Regardless of how you define it, it’s important to designate the difference between social and economic political ideologies. They are completely independent, which is why the further left/further right linear description of both is inaccurate and lacking definition.
Could you explain how the Nolan chart is partial to the right wing?
The whole “social/economic” axis is a gross oversimplification, though; and it muddies the relatively simple (and historical) distinction between right/left political ideology, which stretches back to the French Revolution.
Fundamentally, rightism is about consolidating authority (which is composed of wealth and power).
Leftism is about ensuring the authority (wealth & power) remains evenly distributed.
Between the two (and at the extremes) is a complex web of ideologies. Liberalism focuses on allowances… so while it seems leftist at first glance, the outcome is that consolidation is allowed, encouraged, and even celebrated. Those are rightist traits and result in society shifting rightward.
There is no separation of social and economic policy in this paradigm, because they are tangled in complex, inextricable ways. For example, repression of civil liberties is a tool employed by those seeking to amass and consolidate power. Likewise, economics can (and will) also be manipulated by power-seekers in order to amass wealth and power… this manifests as a flip-flopping of policy in which their abuses must be allowed as “rights” as long as it benefits them, but those same “rights” must not be tolerated for any competition.
This is why liberalism falls into the center of the spectrum; it tolerates - even applauds - such abuses. Abuse is a feature of liberalism. Note how economic anarchism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism) leads swiftly to huge amounts of consolidated wealth (and therefore power) and so shifts all policy rightward, snowballing the entire time as it shifts.
Social policy does not behave in the same manner. A hands-off social policy does not result in consolidation of wealth or power. In fact, it has the opposite effect, so long as someones “freedom to” does not infringe on another’s “freedom from” (or vice-versa). This is sometimes colloquially called “the golden rule of liberty”. Shifting that balance is, as I said, a tool of rightists used to consolidate power.
All of that phone-tapped rambling is to say: means and ends are very different things and these two-axis charts, even if they were not originally intended to deceive, are now used almost exclusively for that purpose. They deliberately conflate the means and ends to make the consolidating actions of rightists appear less insidious than they actually are… to provide an illusion of freedom of opportunity in a system that has already been captured.
The majority of what you wrote aligns in agreement with my previous comment. There is a difference in Liberals and liberal economic legislation just as there is a difference between Libertarians and libertarian social freedom.
The right wing is the southeast line, promoting economic conservatism along with increased social legislation.
The left wing is the northwest line, promoting liberal economic support while protecting social liberty.
A Progressive would be placed furthest out on the northeast line, a Centrist in the center, and a Liberal between those two points.
We’re in agreement about what the left and right wings support. I still fail to see how what we have both described is not accurately represented on a two-axis chart.
The problem is that at the core it IS a complex issue, but that does not speak to what is happening RIGHT NOW. Right now there is a genocide. Right now people are dying for a war only politicians want. Right now matters a lot more than making lasting peace in the future. The issue of peace is complex and nuanced, and that has nothing to do with the genocide going on right now. The problem is that people think it does.
*Western Politicians
Progressives are against it as can quite clearly be seen by the responses from Bernie Sanders, AOC, and other progressive (liberal) politicians.
Centrists and Conservatives seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the it’s a complex issues and if you question Israel than you must be racist against Israelis.
The whole thing is frustrating, and we need to do better than blanket labeling “liberals bad” here because it reads really wrong…
Schumer also called for Netanyahu’s resignation two months ago.
When all but three House Republicans introduced a bill to sidestep Biden’s pause on arms, 16 out of 213 House Democrats offered support. That’s hardly support of liberals.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4669370-these-16-house-democrats-bucked-biden-party-leadership-on-israel-bill/
Make note of their names and vote them out regardless, but stop with this party division nonsense and recognize that there’s an entire party that wants to see Gaza and Rafah nuked and paved.
I’m surprised by Moskowitz here. I thought he was better than this.
I guess I’ll be “the guy” this time.
Liberal is the correct term.
Liberals are not inherently progressive or leftist in the least. They are rightist-enablers who value their means over the inevitable ends. At “best” they are “enlightened centrists” who are willfully ignorant about the consequences of their actions, and at worst zealously dogmatic about their sacred middle-of-the-road fallacy.
These are not merely politicians… they are regular people who have been trained to turn a blind eye to hoarding, power consolidation, and overt abuse of others. That is liberalism.
Thanks for taking my shift the guy. I’ll get you back fam.
Liberal is opposite conservative in defining economic policy legislation in political ideology. Libertarian is opposite authoritarian in defining social legislation. The middle is considered centrist.
A Liberal shares support for social freedom and liberal economic policies with a progressive, but sits between progressive and centrist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
There are absolutely Democrats in Congress that fall into the category of centrist. Referring to them as liberals is simply inaccurate. Once seated, politicians no longer get to define their own political ideology. It’s determined by their legislation and voting record.
Your second paragraph is correct, but the first one is just regurgitated right-wing propaganda, spread as a weak attempt to shift the Overton window rightward☹️
That’s how I was taught to identify political ideology in Poli-Sci class. The right wing is on the line between conservative and authoritarian, where the left wing is on the line between liberal and libertarian. Libertarians (capital L) are on the line between libertarian and conservative.
Regardless of how you define it, it’s important to designate the difference between social and economic political ideologies. They are completely independent, which is why the further left/further right linear description of both is inaccurate and lacking definition.
Could you explain how the Nolan chart is partial to the right wing?
The whole “social/economic” axis is a gross oversimplification, though; and it muddies the relatively simple (and historical) distinction between right/left political ideology, which stretches back to the French Revolution.
Fundamentally, rightism is about consolidating authority (which is composed of wealth and power).
Leftism is about ensuring the authority (wealth & power) remains evenly distributed.
Between the two (and at the extremes) is a complex web of ideologies. Liberalism focuses on allowances… so while it seems leftist at first glance, the outcome is that consolidation is allowed, encouraged, and even celebrated. Those are rightist traits and result in society shifting rightward.
There is no separation of social and economic policy in this paradigm, because they are tangled in complex, inextricable ways. For example, repression of civil liberties is a tool employed by those seeking to amass and consolidate power. Likewise, economics can (and will) also be manipulated by power-seekers in order to amass wealth and power… this manifests as a flip-flopping of policy in which their abuses must be allowed as “rights” as long as it benefits them, but those same “rights” must not be tolerated for any competition.
This is why liberalism falls into the center of the spectrum; it tolerates - even applauds - such abuses. Abuse is a feature of liberalism. Note how economic anarchism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism) leads swiftly to huge amounts of consolidated wealth (and therefore power) and so shifts all policy rightward, snowballing the entire time as it shifts.
Social policy does not behave in the same manner. A hands-off social policy does not result in consolidation of wealth or power. In fact, it has the opposite effect, so long as someones “freedom to” does not infringe on another’s “freedom from” (or vice-versa). This is sometimes colloquially called “the golden rule of liberty”. Shifting that balance is, as I said, a tool of rightists used to consolidate power.
All of that phone-tapped rambling is to say: means and ends are very different things and these two-axis charts, even if they were not originally intended to deceive, are now used almost exclusively for that purpose. They deliberately conflate the means and ends to make the consolidating actions of rightists appear less insidious than they actually are… to provide an illusion of freedom of opportunity in a system that has already been captured.
The majority of what you wrote aligns in agreement with my previous comment. There is a difference in Liberals and liberal economic legislation just as there is a difference between Libertarians and libertarian social freedom.
The right wing is the southeast line, promoting economic conservatism along with increased social legislation.
The left wing is the northwest line, promoting liberal economic support while protecting social liberty.
A Progressive would be placed furthest out on the northeast line, a Centrist in the center, and a Liberal between those two points.
We’re in agreement about what the left and right wings support. I still fail to see how what we have both described is not accurately represented on a two-axis chart.
Maybe we’re just getting our semantics crossed, then! 😗
My point is just that “both siding” is the sole domain of centrists, and liberals are the vast majority of centrists.
Agreed. Most centrists are definitely liberals, but most liberals aren’t centrists. They just seem like it from the perspective of a progressive.
Progressives != liberals.
class Progressive(Liberal):
The problem is that at the core it IS a complex issue, but that does not speak to what is happening RIGHT NOW. Right now there is a genocide. Right now people are dying for a war only politicians want. Right now matters a lot more than making lasting peace in the future. The issue of peace is complex and nuanced, and that has nothing to do with the genocide going on right now. The problem is that people think it does.