The author is using it consistently in both the headline and the article.
Shag – he is using social liberal in the headline to grab people who identify with that concept using a ‘popular’ definition. Then the author goes on in the article to use it as modern liberalism, the scholarly approach to the term.
As you stated later – the terms have come to be mixed up – and as I said in post #19
Conservative in today's terms actually is more equated to the classic usage of the word 'liberal' and vice versa.
He doesn’t state that he is moving between the populace view of the word and the scholarly definition of the term.
If an understanding of an article is not dependent on the audience, then why did you write the following?
I would go with public perception probably 90 percent of the time shag – until I knew the audience better.
What difference does the audience make as to your understanding of the idea?
Well, shag – I have no idea of what that first sentence means…
But, if you don’t understand how a term is being used in an article, you will get lost regarding the idea. Many people understand the term ‘social liberal’ one way – just like ’04 explained it. Here the author didn’t state that he was going to go into the more scholarly direction of the term He very much used the populace version in the headline and then built his argument around the scholarly definition, which adds social justice. When you add social justice you also add liberal fiscal policies.
I don’t think that most people, when they use the term social liberal, intend to tie it up with social justice – as I have stated before. They want it to stand on its own without the hubbub of does the social justice of equality of opportunity demand the ‘social justice’ of equality of results… Then they can avoid adding liberal fiscal policy to their definition of social liberal.
I think you can make a case for social liberal standing on its own.
"Public perception" is, at best, incoherent and all over the place. It is influenced both by the understanding (or lack of understanding) those reporting the news have of the various ideologies, as well as the rhetoric aimed at distorting and misleading.
Yep – public perception is all over the place –especially with these terms – liberal and conservative. If you are going to argue a point though- don’t shift between a populace perception and a scholarly perception without defining them both.
That said, you are the first person I have ever come across who attempts to make a distinction between "social" liberalism and "modern" liberalism.
Shag – note the difference
‘
Social Liberal’ (
not liberalism) as defined by the majority of the population doesn’t equal ‘
Modern Liberalism’ as defined by scholars. The majority of the population perceives the term Social Liberal to not include ‘social justice’ therefore it isn’t tied up with ‘fiscal liberal’.
Social liberalism and modern liberalism as defined by scholars are, I think, exactly the same. Audience shag, audience…
No it is not what I said, it is simply what fits the narrative you are creating. If you actually look at that quote of me if verifies that. I NEVER equated social and fiscal liberalism. I said they were interdependent parts of the a whole; modern liberalism.
That is an important difference; not mere semantics...
So, I am not quite sure here what you are talking about there isn’t a quote from me…
But, let’s just go with something here – do you think you can be a social liberal and not have social justice, therefore liberal fiscal policies tied up in it? And try to go with the definition that ’04 would go with when he was placing himself in the social liberal/fiscal conservative camp.
People may thing it is possible to take the social policies of liberalism and combine then with conservative fiscal policies, but that is not what you are arguing.
You are arguing that social liberalism is separate from liberalism as a whole.
In the first instance, ideas are derived from a coherent, logically consistent worldview (liberalism) and combined with ideas from a different worldview (conservatism). In your argument, those ideas are not derived from a coherent worldview.
Nope, I am arguing that
social liberals (populace definition) are different than
social liberalism – or people like ’04 view themselves apart from modern liberalism.
If his viewpoint is reflective of the sources of information he reads, then his personal viewpoint is not the standard by which accuracy is to be judged. His viewpoint reflects the sources he reads. If those sources are inaccurate, then what he believes is inaccurate.
Well – they may be, but if a majority of people think a term means one thing – and in your article you use it to mean a more scholarly term… well, I just think you need to do a better job of defining things up front – gosh shag you can be so dense.
Hopefully you didn’t take offense – most people would. The rather popular usage of the word dense is ‘stupid’. However, in scientific terms it means compacted together – our molecules are pretty compacted together creating a dense object. You need to define how you are using a term before going from one concept to another within the same article.
Audience again shag.
You reject the notion that social justice is tied to liberalism yet you cannot explain the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism does not try to change society; liberalism does.
Libertarianism – anarchy does change society shag… it isn’t pretty. How far are you pushing libertarianism here? Abolish the state or minimize the state?
If ideological distinctions are "defined differently by different groups" and are thus completely subjective and unable to be discussed, as you imply, then how can you confidently reject the notion that Obama is a Marxist and/or socialist as you did in this thread?
They are able to be discussed – once you get the ground rules down. I think Cal calls Obama a Marxist because either 1) he really does get it mixed up with socialist or 2) he wants the idea to stick – and Marxist is way bad… worse than socialist. So, usually I go with #2 – Cal is a propagandist at heart.
If you notice in the samples you include – I started fairly early asking if the ‘classic’ term was being used – along with which school of thought.
'
White'
How many different things am I talking about here?
Socialist has the same problem – lots of ways to go… correct shag? Popular definition, scholarly definition, classic definition, modern definition…
All I am saying is that it is best to get on the same playing field before you delve into intricacies of definitions. Especially in this article where he does a sort of bait and switch – get you in with the popular version, and switch to a scholarly version…
So, you wanna try again?
How do you explain the difference between libertarianism and liberalism in the area of social policy?
Are you removing government completely out of the picture shag – some libertarians do, others don’t – social policy changes a great deal between the two.
