15 reasons why liberalism is good.

[alrightgame]

Rules of thread:
I want listed approximately 15 reasons why (left leaning politics) liberalism is good.
The logic behind good will be your own reasons and why you think it is good. Please to try to keep each reason separate.

I do not want reasons why liberalism is bad in the forum, and I ask you also to refrain from argumentative discussion until we have this list. Discussion should be used to brew more reasons why liberalism is good. Please also refrain from listing reasons pertaining to socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism, etc.

I will also be posting a forum for conservatism as well.

Postscript: I realize a lot of you will find this hard, but if we can stick to the objective of these two forums, something meaningful may come out of it.

Edit: Since people of this discussion are finding it hard to come up with reasons, I will bring it back down to 15 reasons.

[mmw]

I'm assuming you mean liberalism as it is used in the U.S. to refer to left leaning politics as opposed to classical liberalism.

In that case progressive ideals regarding civil rights and certain civil liberties make this kind of liberalism appealing to me. However it has many pitfalls as does American conservatism.

You can probably tell I'm a libertarian at this point.

[Blse]

Modern liberalism (there is also classic liberalism which Americans call conservatism) is good because it adds a pragmatic element to policy making that doctrinaire conservatives and social democrats lack.

The economic policies advocated by modern liberals tend to address market failures in an approach that is more "custom-tailored" to the current needs of society.

Furthermore, modern liberals adhere to the concept of positive liberty, i.e. they recognize that liberty is more than the mere absence of coercion but requires the means for self-development to be universally accessible.

In sum, modern liberalism adds a pragmatic approach geared towards fixing market failures and ensuring the universal provision of positive rights (i.e. rights to things like health care and education) to the mix of motives that drive public policy.

[alrightgame]

So far, people of this "thread" have listed four reasons why left leaning liberalism is good:
1. greater freedoms of civil rights and liberties
2. adds a pragmatic element to policy
3. approaches market failures by considering current needs of society
4. allows for the means for self-development to be universally accessible

Edit:
3. approaches market failures by considering current needs of society
a. Addresses externalities
b. Addresses the provision of public and semi-public goods to a more comprehensive extent
c. Advocates policies to address imperfect information
d. Advocates politices to address imperfect competition

5. promotes political innovation (could one say separate political parties?)
6. promotes governmental innovation
7. ensures change when change is needed
8. creates a balance of power

Do you all think three's subparts should be included as separate reasons for good, or is it too specific?

[realitycheque]

Promotes political innovation and governmental improvement by defying the status-quo.

[Blse]

So far, people of this "thread" have listed four reasons why left leaning liberalism is good:
1. greater freedoms of civil rights and liberties
2. adds a pragmatic element to policy
3. approaches market failures by considering current needs of society
4. allows for the means for self-development to be universally accessible

Well we can break those down further. Number 3, for instance, can be broken down into:


Addresses externalities
Addresses the provision of public and semi-public goods to a more comprehensive extent
Advocates policies to address imperfect information
Advocates politices to address imperfect competition


These are broad reasons I gave - you can become more specific as you break them down (you deconstructionist, you :)).

[larkin]

Not to sound slogan-y, but change isn't just a good thing - it's absolutely required for a society to survive and stay competitive. The yin and yang of liberalism/conservatism (by American definitions) is one pushes us to do more, one acts (hopefully) as a necessary and thoughtful brake. But we need to challenge ourselves.

[Ray9]

Liberalism is good because it provides a balance to conservatism which prevents free society from becoming too monolithic.

[PunkinA]

Liberalism can act as a counter-force to rigidly entrenched class structures.

Liberalism intends to provide access to physical necessities for every member of a society.

[TigerDak]

I am not liberal, but I know it has its good points.

Liberalism allows for change to occur
Liberalism fights for equality, rights, and liberties
Liberalism tries to identify and correct errors
Liberalism is willing to take risks (although oftentimes it does so without considering consequences)
Liberalism is not anchored to draconian philosophies

[zibber]

I will also be posting a forum for conservatism as well.

Just to be clear, "liberalism" and "conservatism" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. (We have a right wing party over here who are also classified as "liberal". (They want to conserve the practice of leaving the wealthy free (liber) to act in their own interest.))

In any event, I mention this because it seems as if these two terms are taken to represent both ends of the spectrum, sometimes. I'd prefer a third option of progressivism, the -ism where you learn from your mistakes (like leaving the wealthy free to act in their own interest).

[rickster]

I'd prefer a third option of progressivism, the -ism where you learn from your mistakes (like leaving the wealthy free to act in their own interest).

No that's called a revolution. Bolshevism if you like -isms, zib. :)

[Blse]

Just to be clear, "liberalism" and "conservatism" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. (We have a right wing party over here who are also classified as "liberal". (They want to conserve the practice of leaving the wealthy free (liber) to act in their own interest.))

In any event, I mention this because it seems as if these two terms are taken to represent both ends of the spectrum, sometimes. I'd prefer a third option of progressivism, the -ism where you learn from your mistakes (like leaving the wealthy free to act in their own interest).

That because in Europe you use liberalism to refer to classic liberalism (which we yanks call conservatism). Just like Germany's FDP is called "Die Liberalen" (the liberals) yet is center-right. Here in the U.S. liberalism always refers to what Europeans call "social liberalism" (like the Democrats 66 in your country). To make things just a wee bit more complicated some American use liberal as a synonym for "left" so that social democrats are also called liberals. Oh yeah, here "progressive" is also a synonym for liberal or left.

[rickster]

That because in Europe you use liberalism to refer to classic liberalism (which we yanks call conservatism). Just like Germany's FDP is called "Die Liberalen" (the liberals) yet is center-right. Here in the U.S. liberalism always refers to what Europeans call "social liberalism" (like the Democrats 66 in your country). To make things just a wee bit more complicated some American use liberal as a synonym for "left" so that social democrats are also called liberals. Oh yeah, here "progressive" is also a synonym for liberal or left.

Even more confusing in Australia: here the "conservative" rightist party is called the Liberal Party. You don't want to walk into that shit with your eyes closed!:cheesy:

[alrightgame]

Stop getting confused and use your common sense, I know you all have it, as I have it. Republican parties tend to lean more to the right, hence conservative, and Democrats tend to lean more to the left, hence Liberal. We are close to 15 reasons, once we are there, I will ask the question that I want to ask to make the thread make sense.

Edit: If you don't live in this country and are confused by this, I apologize.





alrightgame added to this post, 4 minutes and 58 seconds later...

So far, people of this "thread" have listed four reasons why left leaning liberalism is good:
1. greater freedoms of civil rights and liberties
2. adds a pragmatic element to policy
3. approaches market failures by considering current needs of society
4. allows for the means for self-development to be universally accessible

Edit:
3. approaches market failures by considering current needs of society
a. Addresses externalities
b. Addresses the provision of public and semi-public goods to a more comprehensive extent
c. Advocates policies to address imperfect information
d. Advocates politices to address imperfect competition

5. promotes political innovation (could one say separate political parties?)
6. promotes governmental innovation
7. ensures change when change is needed
8. creates a balance of power

Do you all think three's subparts should be included as separate reasons for good, or is it too specific?

9. Liberalism allows for change to occur
10. Liberalism fights for equality, rights, and liberties
11. Liberalism tries to identify and correct errors
12. Liberalism is willing to take risks (although oftentimes it does so without considering consequences)
13. Liberalism is not anchored to draconian philosophies
14. Liberalism can act as a counter-force to rigidly entrenched class structures.
15. Liberalism intends to provide access to physical necessities for every member of a society.

Would you all say these are factual reasons why the left leaning politics is good?

[paleoeco]

Generally speaking (though not exclusively) Liberalism tends to work from a "rule utilitarianism" standard for value judgments. Additionally, as it relates to #13, this allows it to modify the "value variable" as necessary to achieve the ultimate goal.

While not specific to the US, leftist (ie socialist) philosophies view labor/people as an end sine qua non, and not as a means (in pure capitalist philosophies, labor is considered capital and is a means to the end of wealth creation) - oddly of course, this has deontological moral foundations and not rule utilitarian ones.

[alrightgame]

Ok, I was hoping to get a little more conversation going between the forumites, but I guess I'll just post the question.

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by liberals in politics? Why are liberal based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their liberal roots?

[hubcap]

Ok, I was hoping to get a little more conversation going between the forumites, but I guess I'll just post the question.

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by liberals in politics? Why are liberal based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their liberal roots?
My personal view is that a large portion of the voters cast their vote in favor of the candidate who promises them the most personal benefits from the public treasury.

[larkin]

Ok, I was hoping to get a little more conversation going between the forumites, but I guess I'll just post the question.

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by liberals in politics? Why are liberal based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their liberal roots?

Assume you're talking about U.S. politics. For the past thirty years, there's been a coordinated and very effective campaign by Republicans to move the conversation in this country rightward. Helped enormously by a politically compromised Clinton and his policy of triangulation in the interest of self-preservation. Liberal, for many years, has been a dirty word in U.S. politics.

I'll give an example: During the primaries Obama and Clinton debated over whether meeting with foreign leaders "without preconditions." (Whatever that means; no meeting takes place without preconditions, but those are very rarely political concessions.) But Reagan and Bush 41 did this routinely, as well as every President prior. Suddenly, somehow, this is off the table? No, it's just an issue because Clinton needed to prove that she's not "liberal," while Republican suggest that anyone to the left of her is now virtually the equivalent of a communist.

So even though to some extent I'm not happy with Democratic politicians lately, I'd like to think the condition is not permanent. I still think, generally speaking, they reflect the traits listed, and certainly more so than the alternative.

The one area where I feel they have not delivered thus far - greater civil rights and liberties. I am a "card-carrying member of the ACLU," speaking of effective demonizations of a position. (One that was aided and abetted by many conservative-identified libertarians! Unbelievable.) There's absolutely no reason why Guantanamo should still be open, among other holdover positions (warantless wiretapping, the expansion of the Patriot Act, etc.) that are transparent violations of civil rights. I still believe they can deliver on some of these, though, if they have the political stomach to.

[jcole124]

Liberalism is not good. Good, Bad and Evil do not exist. It has always been my view that anybody who confines themselves to one religious, political, or philosophical world view is weak minded. This not to say being weak mind is bad simply detrimental to the individual who is weak minded, but extraordinarily beneficial to people like me, it makes the common folk easy manipulate.