What is the appeal of liberalism?

8kczg9v0swrydm

This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

rossie1977

What you describe there is a bunch of different political ideals not 'liberalism'

dotsman

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

To have liberal social values (which I assume you are referring to) is about accepting that not everybody is like you. Not everybody wants the same things as you. Not everybody enjoys the same things as you do.

And that the best way for a society to exist is for people to tolerate others who are different. The less laws and rules regarding social constructs, and the more freedom, the better. Basically, live and let live.

It's like with music. If you don't like a particular type of music (say, country music), a conservative will want it banned, a liberal will be happy for it be allowed, but might ask that the volume is kept down to an appropriate level etc.

And, by the way, the ancients were far more socially liberal than us. The Greeks and Roman (pre-Christian) were all about the homo and the tranny. Absolutely worshipped them. Of all the religions man has ever made, Judaism and its derivatives (Christianity and Islam) are among the most conservative imaginable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Therein lies he problem: why? Why should someon automatically accept the circumstances they're born into?

Liberalism allows you to disagree and find your own path, conservatism - as you describe it - instructs you to follow the path chosen for you. This is the exact opposite of freedom.

In short, why would you wnt someone else to tell you what to do?

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

None of this contradicts liberalism. Liberals have strong family connections too.

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

This is not liberalism.

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

Again, the simple asnwer is: freedom. And not having to listen to someone else tell you how to live your life.

ironclaw

You work hard to get a good job to support your family

Speaking as a millennial, this simply isn't possible. There are no jobs 'good' enough to replicate the lives those retiring now had. The way the world worked in my parent's generation simply doesn't exist any more. To conserve that way of life is to sentence mine and subsequent generates to poverty, and increase an ever-increasing wealth gap. I'm an entrepreneur myself, work my back off and I'd be fairly conservation on corporate taxes etc but conservatism simply doesn't work in the broader sense, the status quo has to be radically changed in a number of facets of life.

victor8600

How about socialism? No gay marriage in the old Union of the Soviet Republic. Order and obedience, that should be right up your alley, no?

eviltwin

Personally I like living in a society where people can be themselves instead of being forced into boxes. I grew up in the conservative 80’s and it was pretty ****e tbh if you were in any way different.

I also work hard for my family but that’s partly as a result of liberalism. Conservatives tend to have issues with working mothers. And unfortunately I don’t share the OP’s view on God or dying for ones country so where does that leave others like me.

Liberalism won’t force you to change your views OP. But we’re all different, all have different values and there’s room for all of them.

doublejobbing 2

I've never understood campaigning for rights for others that are denied to yourself.

Take, for example, direct provision.

A great amount of people marching in the streets over it will be students.

Some, many, of these students will be from the countryside, living in Dublin.

They are marching for own door accommodation (read- a house/ flat all to yourself) for people who have been in the country five minutes, who already receive free health care, free accommodation and a weekly government stipend, among many other things.

These people are in the country five minutes and get more free stuff than the student marching gets. The student likely doesn't have a medical card, doesn't receive a training allowance, and pays (or their parents pay) for a shared bedroom in a dump of a house in Rathmines etc.

In many cases an asylum seeker arriving in this country today has more chance of obtaining a "forever home" within five years than the 18 year old student marching on their behalf does within 20 years. Most programme refugees will receive their forever home within five months.

It's mind boggling stupidity. A similar example- BLM marchers who would be beat and robbed at the first opportunity by most of the violent recidivist felons they martyr when one gets on the wrong side of a cop.

statesaver

Liberalism allows you to disagree and find your own path ...................

That made me laugh.

Really ?

bnt

statesaver wrote: »

Liberalism allows you to disagree and find your own path ...................

That made me laugh.

Really ?

Yes, really. What we see e.g. in the UK and USA with "cancel culture" is not liberalism, it's a different kind of authoritarianism. It's not "liberal" to shout down opinions you don't like.

Don't be fooled by the way terms such as "liberal" have been bent out of shape. Like the OP. you seem to have bought in to the definition of "liberal" used in right-wing American politics. I get it, and am just as annoyed at the products of so-called "liberal" education, which in many cases is a front for left-wing "groupthink".

But this is a relatively new thing: the original definition of a "liberal arts education" is far older and more comprehensive than that. Mathematics, for example, is a "liberal art", since it's a good thing for a free person to know. Things are a bit different today, I know.

Here's a nice defence of the term "liberal", from The West Wing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds

Wibbs

dotsman wrote: »

And, by the way, the ancients were far more socially liberal than us. The Greeks and Roman (pre-Christian) were all about the homo and the tranny. Absolutely worshipped them. Of all the religions man has ever made, Judaism and its derivatives (Christianity and Islam) are among the most conservative imaginable.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Neither of the above are particularly accurate. The CrecoRoman attitude to both homosexuality and transexuality was anything but "liberal" in the way we may think them today. They looked at the genders less as purely sexual labels more about the passive and the dominant, female and male respectively. Adult male homosexuality was very much frowned upon as the passive partner was considered less than male and female and what was more widely practised was pederasty, IE young teenagers and adult men, though this itself was frowned upon depending on the time and the place. Lesbian relationships were even more hidden and not a lot survives of record down to today. I suspect they'd not have nearly as much an issue as both would have been seen as "passive". As far as trans goes in day to day life not much is mentioned about it but crossdressing was considered beyond the pale, again moreso if the man wore women's garb again taking the passive role and would be open to ridicule.

Both societies were anything but liberal. They were for the most part extremely conservative, if anything "far right", imperial, sting in retribution for any crimes against the state polis and society, highly dubious of the "other" and the best culture was their own.

As for Ancient Greek "social values" eh... no. In Athenian society women were neither seen nor heard for the most part. Cloistered essentially. Think modern Saudi Arabia only worse. Prostitutes were some of the more visible(and some made a fair few quid off the back of it). The Spartans were far more equal on this score and women could hold property and walk about freely, though some have argued that this was to keep the men concerned with defence. This scandalised the Athenians. Oh and both societies heavily relied on slaves. Infanticide was common too. Roman women had more freedom and in practical terms much more. Quite a few made a nice fortune for themselves. The Romans were a practical people and into(at least at times) social mobility in a way that was rare in the ancient world. So if a woman was making bank/supporting the state and society blind eyes were applied.

Their religions could be just as hardline and conservative too. The single biggest difference and one IMHO that has had the most influence post Christianity is that they were polytheistic. If everyone you know worships many and different gods and goddesses, then religious strife is much less likely. If you decide that there's only one and everyone else is wrong then... Plus Greek and Roman influences are massive in Christianity. They transformed it from a Jewish sect into one palatable for the existing Greek and Roman world. They added in a female deity(Mary) to replace the old ones and loads of saints to replace the previous pantheon, threw halos around the main characters and in the early days Jesus looked like a gilded unbearded slightly androgynous youth, they got rid of both chopping bits of boys mickeys off and food restrictions, which they considered the notions of barbarians. This notion that Christianity felled Rome is down to Gibbon and it doesn't bear much scrutiny. Never mind that the Eastern Roman empire Byzantium(though they always called themselves Romans) lasted another thousand years thanks very much and they were very Christian.

And that folks is how you do an aside... :D

John Frank Wilson

What is it they say... something like:

If you're not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart - and if you're not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.

Or something like that...

rossie1977

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

Does it. France, Denmark and Finland have the highest social spending per % of gdp and Mexico lowest in the OECD.

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Do whatever you want?

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money

Those 'liberal darlings' like Trump who has massively increased us debt and budget deficit in just a few years despite the economy he was handed on the rise since 2010!

unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries)

Who is calling for unrestrained immigration, names please?

ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal.

If we don't protect our ecology then this planet will longer be habitable.

Someone once said 'all men are created equal'. Not sure who that was maybe Jerry Springer!!!!!

Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

I googled this and apparently it was a stunt by far right trolls https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/far-right-hoaxers-behind-islam-posters-g7cnkw0b2

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

Why should it be you or my decision about who someone married or what a women does to her own body?

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

As said previously most of your points are mishmash of different political ideas so I can't help you on what appeals to various groups.

Definition of liberalism from quick Google search gives me 'belief in freedom, equality, democracy and human rights'.

Not sure who in 2020 wants freedom, equality, democracy or human rights... probably some crazy hippies I guess

Gregor Samsa

Fact is, very few people are purely liberal or conservative. Most people are happy to live and let live, but also don’t like unbridled change just for the sake of it. This business of pigeonholing people exclusively into one camp or the other doesn’t represent reality for most.

.anon.

What is the appeal of using After Hours as your own personal blog?

Do sites like Wordpress and Blogger still exist?

Gregor Samsa

I’ll also point out that “conservatism” isn’t as unchanging as it sometimes thinks. There’s a lot of values that conservatives hold dear today that would be alien or in direct opposition to the values that previous generations of conservatives would have held. Some of those values would have even come from the liberals and progressives of previous generations. I’m thinking of the notion of republican government as one example. There’s very few modern conservatives in Ireland or the US that would support monarchy in the way that their conservative ancestors would have. And certainly in the US, republicanism is fully embraced by conservatives, even though it was born out of liberal and progressive revolution.

You mention certain values going back to Ancient Greece, but the fact is that the Ancient Greeks would have also had some values that modern conservatives would find totally abhorrent. And modern conservatives would have some values that Ancient Greeks would have though as off-the-wall revolutionary.

Everything progresses, even conservatism.

The_Brood

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

This might rattle the cage a bit, but hear me out.

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

Not gonna engage with any of the points really, but the answer to the question is the same as what used to be the appeal of conservatism: acceptance by the socially dominant majority. To be just another sheep. Many went to church solely for such reasons, others held on to old fashioned values for such reason, and now espouse liberalism/progressive causes.

For example if 'liberals' actually genuinely believed in what they stood for, they would have backed Bernie to the end, no matter what. They abandoned him for Biden, who may be 'better' than Trump but is a neoliberal corporatist wet dream. Wave a little rainbow flag for the cameras so that your opponents are dismissed as bigots if they disagree with you on anything, and go on full speed ahead to screw the worker and do further drive the gap between the rich and the poor. The same politics that have dominated western Europe for decades.

Long story short few people have any real values or principles they are willing to stand up for if it costs them anything. Most are just glad to be sheep. The current liberal trend is a particularly self-righteous one.

dxhound2005

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. .

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

The appeal of liberalism is the money which goes to pensioners and children. Your family would be liberals in that respect. And it never did them any harm.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

What is it they say... something like:

If you're not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart - and if you're not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.

Or something like that...

In other words, you want to be free when youre young, but maintain the right to boss the young around when you're old...

slipperyox

Either work.
If their intention is to solve a problem, instead of pleasing people.

However, when free speech/ free though is removed.

Then we have a problem.

And its coming.

slipperyox

thought

John Frank Wilson

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In other words, you want to be free when youre young, but maintain the right to boss the young around when you're old...

I don't want to boss anyone.

Wibbs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In other words, you want to be free when youre young, but maintain the right to boss the young around when you're old...

IIRC P that quote is attributed to Winston Churchill, a great man for a memorable quip and general repartee, but otherwise a thundering imperialist prick of the highest order who was only too glad to throw various peoples under the bus when it suited him, including many of his fellow Englishmen, unless they hailed from the same privileged class as him.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

I don't want to boss anyone.

Yeah, I know - was refering to the quote

My point being: social conservatism usually means trying to forcing traditions on people in an effort to stop them from changing or following other paths.

Case in point:

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC P that quote is attributed to Winston Churchill, a great man for a memorable quip and general repartee, but otherwise a thundering imperialist prick of the highest order who was only too glad to throw various peoples under the bus when it suited him, including many of his fellow Englishmen, unless they hailed from the same privileged class as him.

Montage of Feck

We had a referendum on abortion and it got passed by a clear majority, get over it. If your against abortion don't have one and let everyone else make their own decisions.

CharlesMartel

Being a liberal in the modern world means never having to make a tough decision, shouting down dissenting views and supporting people that if given the chance would murder you and take all that you own. Liberals will destroy their own societies rather than question their own worldview

John Frank Wilson

Church on Tuesday

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

I've never understood campaigning for rights for others that are denied to yourself.

Take, for example, direct provision.

A great amount of people marching in the streets over it will be students.

Some, many, of these students will be from the countryside, living in Dublin.

They are marching for own door accommodation (read- a house/ flat all to yourself) for people who have been in the country five minutes, who already receive free health care, free accommodation and a weekly government stipend, among many other things.

These people are in the country five minutes and get more free stuff than the student marching gets. The student likely doesn't have a medical card, doesn't receive a training allowance, and pays (or their parents pay) for a shared bedroom in a dump of a house in Rathmines etc.

In many cases an asylum seeker arriving in this country today has more chance of obtaining a "forever home" within five years than the 18 year old student marching on their behalf does within 20 years. Most programme refugees will receive their forever home within five months.

It's mind boggling stupidity. A similar example- BLM marchers who would be beat and robbed at the first opportunity by most of the violent recidivist felons they martyr when one gets on the wrong side of a cop.

Which is paltry BTW.

As for the OP, if conservatism works for you then fair enough but people are entitled to follow whatever works for them. I would consider myself Centrist and it is entirely possible to marry the best of the Left and Right to reach a common sense approach and consensus.

Hotblack Desiato

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In other words, you want to be free when youre young, but maintain the right to boss the young around when you're old...

And benefit from government spending when young and poor, but pay low taxes when old and rich. It's pure selfishness.

Strumms

You shouldn’t nail your ideas, ideals or ideology to a fûcking political party... you should follow your own moral compass and ideology and get a feel for what party at the time of an election can enable those ideals to be represented and fulfilled best, for the good of you AND the country/society. If you vote labour, let it be because they have the talent, ideals, leadership and ideology of fairness to successfully be in government, with the responsibilities this entails and to work for making Ireland a better, more successful on all levels and fairer country.

I just don’t believe in... “ohhh I’m a FF person / FG, always voted for them, always will”.. same any party... a flag, history and past glories won’t make the Ireland of today and tomorrow more fair, successful and better place... focus on the NOW and TOMORROW....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CharlesMartel wrote: »

Being a liberal in the modern world means never having to make a tough decision, shouting down dissenting views and supporting people that if given the chance would murder you and take all that you own. Liberals will destroy their own societies rather than question their own worldview

C'mon Chrarles - stop using Twitter as a base for political theory research!