1) Liberalism isn't doing whatever someone wants (I think that's been well-repeated throughout) 2) Liberals are conservative on some issues while Conservatives are liberal on some issues (i.e. gun control. Conservatives tend to be more pro-gun while liberals tend to support stronger gun control.) 3) I don't know how it is in Mexico, but in America, liberalism is not the problem. Conservatives (who tend to be Republican, unfortunately) are the ones we need to worry about. Why? Because extreme liberals are not the ones yelling out all sorts of ridiculous notions about rape and pregnancy and trying to enforce equally ridiculous laws. For example: In New Mexico, a Republican lawmaker proposed a bill that would make it illegal for rape victims to get abortions for "tampering with evidence" which carries a felony sentence of up to 3 years in jail. It was extreme conservatives who made statements that follow MEDIEVAL mindsets that "real rapes don't result in pregnancies".
The question isn't how far will we let liberalism go. Its how far will we let the loud-mouthed extremist conservatives go because their opinions, their ideas on how our laws should be, are downright terrifying.
I'm not sure why we're talking about measuring the liberal-ness of ideas? Liberal-ness (as you seem to be defining it) is just "how different is this from tradition?"* It's... pretty expected that deviation from tradition (liberal-ness) keeps increasing? The only reason it wouldn't, is if societies tended to change back to the way they traditionally were a lot, and they don't.
That's why some people were confused by what you meant, by the way - in a lot of circles, "liberalism" is what people in the 1700s and 1800s called embracing capitalism, which is now considered a conservative idea. To them, liberalism was liberal in comparison to feudalism.
Based on the pattern of history, I'm pretty sure that people who are liberal for their time, support things that end up actually catching on at some point in the future, and don't cause anything especially bad to happen are the ones who are likely to have their ideas remembered as good. Because those will be the ideas that are *normal* to the people reading the history books. This doesn't mean they're necessarily actually better, just that their ancestors will judge them as better. As I evaluate things, the policies that are actually better are the ones that have the best consequences, which doesn't have much to do with whether they are "liberal" or not.
they'll take it as far as they possibly can until it can't be sustained any longer then it'll crash and we'll revert to conservative principles for a while then people will get bored and demanding and the cycle will repeat all over again.
I agree coolcat10189. Conservative policies have been the ruling bodies for quite some time. But the emerging, younger generations are more liberal on some issues (like gay marriage) which is why law-makers who are in touch with the youth vote (Obama) have taken a more supportive stance on those issues, giving them notice and consideration that they have never received before.
Unbrideld anything will go too far. The fight between liberals and conservatives (if we us the american terminology here) is actually _healthy_ for a society. It is when the fight, arguing, bickering disappears that one should run for cover.
The problem in right now though is that we are in a terrible gridlock. The fighting and arguing has gotten to a point where no one can even come to a decent compromise. They new for well over a YEAR about the fiscal cliff on new years even. The deadline came and they still didn't have anything on the table. They finally came up with something in the wee hours in the morning, but then they continued to bicker like children over it and criticize the people who were actually trying to make a decent compromise for the betterment of our country.
I mostly agree with you. But if I may add two complements to your point,
1. A lot of this is demagoguery, which means that politicians are relying on us to stay in power. 2. Because of #1, we ultimately get the politicians we deserve. I.e. I blame the citizenry for the situation. If you don't want this bickering, don't elect a Newt Gingrich or a Ted Kennedy again and again...
I am not a US citizens, even if I live in the US. I am actually from one of them socialist european countries...so, if that is how you think, trying to draw superficial international lines, assuming your interlocutor can not think beyond that, you have missed my point, grieviously.
If that is not how you think, an explanation would be welcome.
The divide between the groups in America serves to make the two sides more extreme and for less things to be passed through, not 'helpful'. Australia has two major parties, but our parties are centre-right and centre-left. because there is less gap between the two, while they are different and keep each other in check, things actually get done, unlike america, where everything is always vetoed.
It didn't used to always be that way. Right now American is in a gridlock. This is the least bipartisan the parties have been in generations. The divide isn't always as great as it is now. Unfortunately, one side (*cough* Republicans *cough*) have very loud-mouthed, very extreme members who refuse to budge on the issues and make ridiculous statements and propose even more ridiculous laws.
Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy. In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests./i>
Thinking your country is not amazing, but better than 1 country =/= not that.
Liberalism has a few good ideas, but overall takes them too extreme and oftentimes authoritarian. Assuming we're using the American definition. Not using the golden mean fallacy, but in this case you really need a little of the common sense of both sides, but lacking the crazy.
Believe me, it's probably not the second. But it's definitely the first.
The internet naturally forms hiveminds of certain types of people with minorities of other types in certain places. And these partially self regulate, and most people of different types opt to not bother, since they don't want to be the odd one out in a sea of a lot of people who are opposed to them. A lot of people don't realize this, and expect people in certain places to be a balanced selection only to be surprised that what they actually get is a horde in one place, and nothing but a few diehard extreme people who don't MIND being the odd one out in another, who then make the first big group feel even more validated since they see the opposers as crazy.
I just read the definition of libertinism, and taking this term into account, what I'm asking about is if you think liberalism can lead to libertinism, and if you consider libertinism to be an extreme.
Can liberalism lead to libertinism? Depends on if we're talking Classic Liberalism, Fiscal Liberalism, Social Liberalism, Democratic Liberalism, Radicalism, or any one of a hundred variants.
Classical liberalism -- that is, "liberalism" as it is meant by most everyone in the world apart from right-wing American pundits -- simply refers to the ideals of personal liberty and equality. Can "all men are created equal" lead to libertinism? No more than authoritarian systems can, I think.
Gay rights is among the least extreme aspects of social liberalism. Since it's also included in social centrism. The only way to turn that extreme is like they do in England where they literally can put people in prison for making a comment which can be interpreted as mildly negative to gays on facebook. Or things of that nature. Which is not related to gay rights at all, but rather lack of free speech rights.
I agree, but in the US it still seems to be a taboo (not with the government, but with the people) to talk about supporting gay rights or even showing action supporting it. My family is like that still. It just depends on where you were raised (not to mention in 3rd world countries it's apparently legal to kill people based on their sexual preference...)
I'm pretty sure it's not. Of everything that composes liberals, that one's the most likely to also be in centrists. I don't know many center people who sit around thinking of how they can inconvenience gays on a daily basis.
Unless of course "rights" includes things like forcing people who are uncomfortable to not be allowed to decline to interact with them. Which I guess is pretty extreme.
Sixty year old wedding photographers who are forced by a court to take pictures for a gay wedding even though it clearly brings them great distress, and the people can easily go find another. If anything, point out to them that they need to point out in their advertising that they will not do anything they feel uncomfortable with.