(adj): vs. narrow-minded) -- (inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own
(adj): having political or social views favoring reform and progress
(adj): vs. center) (vs. right) -- (of or belonging to the political or intellectual left
(adj): vs. conservative) -- (tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
(adj): having or showing active concern for protection of civil liberties protected by law
(adj): having or demonstrating belief in the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual; favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority
(adj): having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values
(adj): favoring or promoting reform (often by government action)
(adj): under group or government control
(adj): of or relating to a welfare state
(adj): given or giving freely
(adj): vs. stingy) -- (willing to give and share unstintingly
(adj): not literal
(adj): vs. exact) -- (not exact
(n): a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
(n): a fully developed person from maturity onward
(n): a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
(n): a fully developed person from maturity onward
It seems to me that mainstream politics in most developed countries embraces a smaller portion of the political spectrum than ever, due to traditionally left-wing parties moving significantly rightwards, and traditionally right-wing ones moving marginally leftwards; however, the portion of the spectrum covered by the mainstream in Europe certainly remains to the left, fiscally and socially, of the portion covered in America. The centre of course is relative - from a European perspective, both American parties are right of centre.
Rolig: this is true. It's because (I think) American politics is just far less extreme, closer to the center, than European politics. There isn't a spectrum from socialism to (for lack of a better term) fascism in the U.S.—we're all, by European or even international standards, politically moderate. Just slightly to the right or left of center.
"Liberal" does mean "to the left" in the United States, just as "conservative" means "to the right."
Kewpid, its meaning as "extreme left-wing," which you rightly decry as incorrect, is the meaning ascribed to the word by (mostly conservative) blabbers and dundits. I continue to preach among my fellow humans that "liberal" is not a pejorative and never was. Moreover, I think the majority of Americans (not the media screamers but actual ordinary people who may not even pay attention to politics) are liberal in the sense that they are slightly to the left of center.
Back to rolig's original post, liberals now use the term "progressive" to try to describe themselves—and hearken back to a period of time when just about everyone rushed to describe themselves as Progressives (even Teddy Roosevelt, who started off about as far from Progressive as one could get). But it hasn't quite caught on, partly because of people like me who keep insisting that liberal is not a pejorative.
Which is strange, because from the European perspective, there is no left wing in (mainstream) American politics. If "liberal" is a nasty word in US political discourse, "socialist" is somewhere next to "traitor".
‘liberal’ has somehow come to mean ‘left-wing’ in the US, which is … not right.
My spawn wore a t-shirt for a while that had the dictionary definition of "liberal" on it. Lots of spawn's classmates commented that they hadn't known it meant anything good.
Oh... and it is refutable. :)
The liberals did, mjt. No one else.
Who allowed this word to be co-opted as a vague, unrefutable pejorative?