ahh, but theres the rub. the bush admin IS liberal. On 7/5/05, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > leaking pen wrote: > > >well, if someone links it, ill take it. btw, since the term liberal > >means desiring change, then proggressive and liberal mean the same > >thing, dont they? > > > For a good time, try reading the European press, and see what they have > to say about "liberals". (The identical word exists in French, for > instance, as well as British English.) > > Tony Blair is a "liberal" and Jaque Chirac is not; neither is Villepin. > Thatcher certainly was, however! The French socialists were afraid the > "liberalism" of Margerat Thatcher would be imported into France if the > constitution passed, which is one reason it didn't. > > "Liberal" in the U.S. generally has meant liberal with government > handouts (very roughly speaking!) -- i.e., in favor of increasing > welfare-like things (and restrictions on corporations). > > "Liberal" in Europe typically seems to mean "liberal in treatment of > corporations" -- i.e., reducing labor laws (thus removing restrictions > on corporations). > > In either case, "liberal" doesn't really mean "desiring change" -- if it > did, then the Bush administration would be very liberal indeed, because > there are lots of things they want to change. Indeed, in the current > state of things in the U.S., I'd argue that "liberal" is used to mean > "wanting to keep the status quo" while "conservative" is used to mean > "wanting to change things to favor business and a strong military" ... > so really, so-called "liberals" are actually conservatives, and > so-called "conservatives" are actually progressives (or perhaps > "radicals" or even "reactionaries" but certainly not conservatives, in > the literal sense of the word). > >
-- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
