Mediaboss Marketing

This article discusses the history and development of various notions of liberalism in the United States. For the ideology normally identified in the United States today as "liberalism", see Modern liberalism in the United States.

Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought. Modern liberalism in the United States includes issues such as voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as: equal education opportunities, access to health care, transportation infrastructure, basic food for the hungry and basic shelter for the homeless. Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberal thought, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality and that providing for the general welfare exceeds the legitimate role of government.[1]

Without a qualifier, the term "liberalism" since the 1930s in the United States usually refers to "modern liberalism", a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It is a form of social liberalism, whose accomplishments include the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Act in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Community Reinvestment Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

According to Louis Hartz, liberalism in the United States differs from liberalism elsewhere in the world because America never had a resident hereditary aristocracy,[2] and so avoided the worst of the class warfare that swept Europe.[3]

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of the Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by 1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep South.

From the time of the American Revolution to the present day, America has extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in 1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]

Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small farmers.[6] As the American economy began to shift to manufacturing and services, liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth and influence it brought was increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few business owners, rather than the existing system of a few large land owners, and raised new questions whether political democracy could survive the power of the rich.

The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932, the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies (the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]

After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to illness.

In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the Vietnam War.

See original here:

Liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...

A liberal, in the American sense, is one who falls to the left in the political spectrum; In other parts of the world, however, liberalism is the belief in laissez-faire capitalism and free-market systems - hence the recently coined term, neoliberalism.

Although I do not like to generalize, for the purposes of a (somewhat) concise dictionary definition, here is the very basic liberal (American sense) ideology:

Politics: The federal government exists to protect and serve the people, and therefore, should be given sufficient power to fulfill its role successfully. Ways in which this can be accomplished include giving the federal government more power than local governments and having the government provide programs designed to protect the interests of the people (these include welfare, Medicare, and social security). Overall, these programs have helped extensively in aiding the poor and unfortunate, as well as the elderly and middle class. To make sure that the interests of the people are served, it was liberals (or so they were considered in their time) that devised the idea of a direct democracy, a republic, and modern democracy. This way, it is ensured that the federal government represents the interests of the people, and the extensive power that it is given is not used to further unpopular goals. Liberals do not concentrate on military power (though that is not to say they ignore it), but rather focus on funding towards education, improving wages, protecting the environment, etc. Many propose the dismantling of heavy-cost programs such as the Star Wars program (no, not the film series), in order to use the money to fund more practical needs.

Social Ideology: As one travels further left on the political spectrum, it is noticed that tolerance, acceptance, and general compassion for all people steadily increases (in theory at least). Liberals are typically concerned with the rights of the oppressed and unfortunate this, of course, does not mean that they ignore the rights of others (liberals represent the best interests of the middle-class in America). This has led many liberals to lobby for the rights of homosexuals, women, minorities, single-mothers, etc. Many fundamentalists see this is immoral; however, it is, in reality, the most mature, and progressive way in which to deal with social differences. Liberals are identified with fighting for equal rights, such as those who wanted to abolish slavery and those who fought hard for a woman's reproductive right (see Abortion). Liberals have also often fought for ecological integrity, protecting the environment, diversity of species, as well as indigenous populations rights. Almost all social betterment programs are funded by liberal institutions, and government funded social programs on education improvement, childrens rights, womens rights, etc. are all supported by liberals. Basically, social liberalism is the mature, understanding way in which to embrace individual differences, not according to ancient dogma or religious prejudice, but according to the ideals of humanity that have been cultivated by our experiences throughout history, summed up in that famous American maxim: with liberty and justice for all.

Economics: Using the term liberal when speaking of economics is very confusing, as liberal in America is completely opposite to the rest of the world. Therefore, here, as I have been doing, I will concentrate on the American definition of liberal concerning economics. Liberals believe that the rights of the people, of the majority, are to be valued much more sincerely than those of corporations, and therefore have frequently proposed the weakening of corporate power through heavier taxation (of corporations), environmental regulations, and the formation of unions. Liberals often propose the heavier taxation of WEALTHY individuals, while alleviating taxes on the middle class, and especially the poor. Liberals (American sense) do not support laissez-faire economics because, to put it simply, multinational corporations take advantage of developing countries and encourage exploitation and child labor (multinational corporations are spawned from laissez-faire policies). Instead, many propose the nationalization of several industries, which would make sure that wealth and power is not concentrated in a few hands, but is in the hands of the people (represented by elected officials in government). I am not going to go into the extreme intricacies of the economic implications of privatization of resources, etc., but will say that privatization and globalization have greatly damaged the economies of Latin America, namely Argentina and Mexico (see NAFTA).

This summation of the leftist ideology may not be 100% correct in all situations, as there are many variations on several issues and I may have depicted the current definition of liberal as too far to the left than it is generally accepted. On that note, many leftists are critical of the political situation in America, claiming that the left is now in the center, as the general populace has been conditioned by institutions such as Fox News to consider everything left of Hitler (as one clever person put it) as radical liberalism. I, myself, have observed that, in America, there are two basic types of liberals: those who concern themselves only with liberal policies on the domestic front, and either ignore international affairs or remain patriotic and dedicated to the American way (Al Franken, Bill Clinton, etc.) And then there are those, despite the criticism they face from many fellow liberals (classified under the former definition), who are highly critical of US foreign policy, addressing such issues as Iran-Contra, the Sandanistas, Pinochet, Vietnam, NATOs intervention in Kosovo, our trade embargo on Cuba, etc, etc. (such as Noam Chomsky, William Blumm, etc.) Unfortunately, it seems that adolescent rage has run rampant on this particular word, and most definitions are either incoherent jumbles of insults and generalizations or deliberate spewing of misinformation (see the definition that describes the situation in Iraq, without addressing our suppression of popular revolts in Iraq, our pre-war sanctions on Iraq that have caused the death of some 5 million children, and our support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and even our post-war sale of biological elements usable in weapons to Saddams regime).

Visit link:

Urban Dictionary: liberals

IT IS no secret that the state government must hold onto its marginal seats in the Greater Adelaide area to retain office at this weekend's election.

Labor holds 11 seats by margins of less than 5 per cent on a two-party preferred basis and the Liberal Party needs to win six of them to take government in its own right.

Suburban seats, such as Hartley (with a margin of 0.5pc), Elder (1.7pc) and Ashford (1.5pc) will be hot battlegrounds, but so too will the peri-urban a of Light and Mawson, held by Labor incumbents Tony Piccolo (4.2pc) and Leon Bignell (4.9pc) respectively.

Both electorates bucked the trend at the 2010 election by swinging towards Labor and, in an effort to tackle this, the Liberals promised Mawson voters a $500,000 wine trail to join McLaren Vale with Clare, and a 100,000-person expansion of the town of Roseworthy in Light.

Piccolo says the expansion of Roseworthy will be one of the biggest issues for his electorate at the election.

"If people want 100,000 people to be housed in Roseworthy, which is the equivalent of Elizabeth and Salisbury combined and will take up valuable farming land, they'll vote Liberal," Piccolo said.

"If they don't want that, they'll vote for me locally."

Labor was opposed to 100,000 people being relocated to Roseworthy, but it would support a "modest expansion of the township to enable enough critical mass to make it a viable community".

Liberal candidate for Light Cosie Costa believes cost of living is the single greatest issue for the electorate.

Raised on an almond orchard in the area before becoming a diesel mechanic and establishing his own mechanical repairs business that expanded into weighing systems, he says people are feeling the cost of living.

See more here:

Liberals target tight peri-urban seats

Published Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:02PM EDT Last Updated Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:29PM EDT

The Liberals are proposing a major overhaul of the way the healthcare system is funded, with payments based on each facility's productivity.

Philippe Couillard said he would create a network of 50 super clinics which would be open seven days a week.

He also proposed trimming healthcare bureaucracy by ten percent., while hiring 2,000 nurse-practitioners to improve patient care.

Couillard, joined by doctors and Liberal candidates Gaetan Barrette and Yves Bolduc, said planning for healthcare would be in danger if the PQ were re-elected because of that party's devotion to creating an independent country.

Couillard said because the PQ would devote so much effort to achieving sovereignty it would lose sight of healthcare.

He also said the transition to an independent Quebec would destroy Canada, damage Quebec's economy for years, and have a massive negative impact on healthcare services.

The proof, Couillard said, is choosing Pierre Karl Peladeau as a candidate and pretending he's an economic genius.

"He's not there for the economy, jobs, healthcare. He's there to separate Quebec from Canada. This is his main engine, we know that, it's clear now," said Couillard.

"This is why the ballot question now, thanks to him by the way, thanks to him, is even clearer than it was a few days ago."

Read more from the original source:

Liberals plan to revamp healthcare if elected

Liberal leader Steven Marshall has flagged a shake-up of the South Australian public service.

He says some departmental chief executives report to too many ministers and departments could be more efficient.

Mr Marshall will not reveal which departments are earmarked for change.

"We're doing some final portfolio movements at the moment with some agencies which I think are in illogical groupings under the current Government and we'll finalise that," he said.

Mr Marshall says, if the Liberals form government, he will continue with his current frontbench team, but will not confirm which ministerial roles might change until after the election.

The Liberals are promising to change South Australia's fines system if they win power.

Part of the changes would flow from an audit of fixed speed and red light cameras to ensure they operate in high-risk zones rather than with an eye to revenue-raising.

The Liberals say they would spend $1 million annually for an independent authority, separate from police and the courts, which would give people a review mechanism for expiation notices without having to go to court.

"Our policy will underpin a renewal of public confidence in the system and restore the use of fines as an effective law enforcement tool," shadow attorney-general Stephen Wade said.

But Attorney-General John Rau says an independent organisation outside of the court system already has been set up.

More here:

SA election: Public sector changes flagged by Liberals