• HanlonsButterknife@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So is your definition of “liberal” just “someone who wants to maintain the status quo”, full stop? If so, that’s a very strange definition.

    As I understand it, Classical liberalism, as described in the link you provided generally just prioritizes individual liberty. It’s not full on anti-government libertarianism, but it favors a limited government.

    And again, as I understand it, Neoliberalism is essentially the orthodoxy of the west, post WW2. It’s still largely focused on individual liberty but perhaps not to the same extreme, and it’s largely based on the idea that capitalism (regulated, and with social safety nets) can be harnessed as a global force for good.

    I don’t see how anyone who adheres to either of those ideas could use them to justify an anti-abortion position, aside from deranged religious based arguments about fetal personhood.

    • Poob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I didn’t define it, I described it in its current form, though I definitely see how my phrasing is a bit poor. The definition is in the linked article. Almost always liberals DO want the status quo, because the status quo is capitalism. Progressives join the Democrats because where the hell else are they going to go?

      It’s important to point out though that when conservatives attack “liberals,” they are actually attacking progressives. They see progressives joining their opponents and use to to attack both at the same time.