leaking pen wrote:
well, if someone links it, ill take it. btw, since the term liberal
means desiring change, then proggressive and liberal mean the same
thing, dont they?
For a good time, try reading the European press, and see what they have
to say about "liberals". (The identical word exists in French, for
instance, as well as British English.)
Tony Blair is a "liberal" and Jaque Chirac is not; neither is Villepin.
Thatcher certainly was, however! The French socialists were afraid the
"liberalism" of Margerat Thatcher would be imported into France if the
constitution passed, which is one reason it didn't.
"Liberal" in the U.S. generally has meant liberal with government
handouts (very roughly speaking!) -- i.e., in favor of increasing
welfare-like things (and restrictions on corporations).
"Liberal" in Europe typically seems to mean "liberal in treatment of
corporations" -- i.e., reducing labor laws (thus removing restrictions
on corporations).
In either case, "liberal" doesn't really mean "desiring change" -- if it
did, then the Bush administration would be very liberal indeed, because
there are lots of things they want to change. Indeed, in the current
state of things in the U.S., I'd argue that "liberal" is used to mean
"wanting to keep the status quo" while "conservative" is used to mean
"wanting to change things to favor business and a strong military" ...
so really, so-called "liberals" are actually conservatives, and
so-called "conservatives" are actually progressives (or perhaps
"radicals" or even "reactionaries" but certainly not conservatives, in
the literal sense of the word).
