From: Michael Hoover people you've identified (academics, professionals, and such -
affluent, but not rich) who call themselves 'liberal' favor market and private property but they're uncomfortable with with inequalities and inequities such institutions/practices require... thus, government is obliged to intervene - to varying degrees and in various ways - to soften blow of and care for capitalism's wreckage... unable/unwilling to attack/challenge principal reason for inequality leaves heart pulling toward equality, capitalism furthering inequality... conservative are right (wing and correct), liberals are bleeding hearts... michael hoover ^^^^^^ CB: Agreeing with Michael, "The" Mid-20th Century, U.S. liberal ( not oldtyme-laissez-faire liberals or neo-liberals) is characterized by two-facedness, a bleeding heart, who ends up being forced to stab in the back because of their other side with its allegiance to captalism and bourgeoisdom. From a radical standpoint, Liberals are often betrayers , who when they win the trust of the oppressed , then turnaround and do them in. The "bleeding heart" face is thereby paternalistic. The benign face of Liberals views the working class and masses as only oppressed and downtrodden, needing the Liberals to help them up and out of wretchedness. Whereas radicals view working masses as both oppressed AND the only social force that can radically change society and liberate itself (i.e. as powerful or with potential). Historically, for the U.S., "liberalism" itself has twisted and turned from laissez-faire ( original bourgeoisie) to New Deal (U.S.) to Neo- .
