The US uses lib to mean socially liberal, in opposition to the cons. The rest of the world uses it to mean fiscally liberal, as in support of not regulating capitalist markets, which is an anti worker position.
People often get pissy that a word can have more than one definition.
Progressive really isn’t the catch all that people think it is. The existence of progressive conservative movements and self professed progressive christian Democrats in the past should be enough to prove that. It’s a nice label to state the aspirations of your political ideology(and your results focused method) but not a way to describe your ideology.
One of America’s most historically popular progressive politician who used government power to bust trusts and fight for “a fair deal”, for example, was still an economic liberal, a conservative American exceptionalist and a warhawk.
And even more generally, Western liberal democracy which most flavors of anarchism and socialism view as a system that is neither based on securing liberty or particularly democratic.
The US uses lib to mean socially liberal, in opposition to the cons. The rest of the world uses it to mean fiscally liberal, as in support of not regulating capitalist markets, which is an anti worker position.
People often get pissy that a word can have more than one definition.
I didn’t even know the second definition existed at all. Ty for sharing.
Given the number of Americans on here it’s now starting to make sense why I keep seeing commenters get snagged on the word “liberal.”
Liberals are not progressive. At least not except incidentally. I think that’s true everywhere…?
Progressive really isn’t the catch all that people think it is. The existence of progressive conservative movements and self professed progressive christian Democrats in the past should be enough to prove that. It’s a nice label to state the aspirations of your political ideology(and your results focused method) but not a way to describe your ideology.
One of America’s most historically popular progressive politician who used government power to bust trusts and fight for “a fair deal”, for example, was still an economic liberal, a conservative American exceptionalist and a warhawk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt
Thank you, that makes more sense.
If you don’t know what liberal means, sure.
And even more generally, Western liberal democracy which most flavors of anarchism and socialism view as a system that is neither based on securing liberty or particularly democratic.