What does it mean to be a liberal (politically)?

[Mister Agenda]

This is a pretty fair question. There's so many definitions people have of what a liberal is supposed to be that it becomes complicated to define liberalism.

Originally, liberalism is a political ideology that emphasizes personal individual liberties and autonomy - Core values are liberty, life and property.

Sure, we call that 'Classic Liberalism' these days. A lot of people who describe themselves as 'small-l' libertarian-leaning are this.

Liberalism is necessarily capitalist since the free market is the only institution compatible with individual rights and it's maximization - However this doesn't mean advocating ultra-capitalism and unregulated markets. Indeed, a wise liberal probably thinks that idealistically the best state is the one that governs less, but public intervention is a necessity. In fact, since many individuals and groups of people can be disadvantaged compared to others, it's necessary to support public intervention and social justice to allow those people to fully exercise their individual rights as well. In my opinion, at least, being a liberal is compatible with moderate, wise state intervention, but it cannot be dissociated from capitalism as an economic system and it's core principles. A liberal who is anti-capitalist is not a liberal, but probably a social-democrat or a socialist.

I think the term 'socialist' is usually misused. Social programs are not socialism or socialistic. The state owning the means of production is socialistic.

Liberals V. Conservatives:
When looking at American politics it's curious that conservatives seem more "liberal" when it comes to economics and state intervention than American liberals - In my opinion, the core differences are that liberals are socially liberal (gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization, etc.) and liberals end up being the ones advocating higher economic freedom - Conservatives want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, support the death penalty (individual right to one's own life), support invading people's privacy, etc... If liberals really do support higher state intervention for the common good, it ends up being a means to reach the end - The end is equity in the sense that all people, within limitations, have equal opportunities (not results). In Europe the word liberal doesn't get thrown much, though it's correlated with center right social democrats that favour capitalism, but it doesn't mean much by itself, it just means that someone is "liberal" and has a connotation with social tolerance and being pro social equality.

I can agree with that, broadly. I'd say the GOP has become the party of borrow and spend, which is worse than tax and spend IMHO, and goes against their supposed core principles. I'd say that most rank-and-file conservatives don't want to 'make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer'. They mostly honestly believe that their economic policies will benefit the poor more in the long run, and if they're failing to do so, it's because they're not being implemented properly. For the most part (with notable exceptions), they're not evil, just wrong.

Liberals V. Libertarians - From what I have noticed the core difference is that libertarians are more averse to State intervention and support a much larger scale of the non aggression principle, leading individuals to maximize their individual rights to the point the state can either be privatized or is almost useless. Libertarians are also, apparently, more averse to regulating the free market, as opposed to liberals.

A fair cop, except the silent majority of libertarians are more moderate in how much they would decrease government. Technically, anarcho-capitalists are more 'fellow travellers' than actual libertarians since libertarianism by defintion does not have eliminating government entirely as a goal, but they tend to appropriate the libertarian label and rant a lot on the internet. A lot of actual libertarian literature is more about decreasing government waste, reducing military spending, and protecting privacy and autonomy. The Libertarian Party's last presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, is a good example of 'mainstream libertarianism'.

Liberals V. Socialists:
I've noticed both support state intervention and social justice, but the noticeable difference is that socialists are anti-capitalists by nature, even though they want to bring it down trough a democratic procedure (if you don't think this is true, then you need to inform yourself - You can't be a socialist and a capitalist - If you support both, you are a social democrat)

Again, agreed with the caveat that socialism and social programs are entirely separate things.

Liberals V. Social democrats:
Social Democrats have affinities with socialism but support the coexistence of socialistic and social measures with capitalism. They support keeping the free market under regulation and favour strong social justice. The difference I think is that social democrats place much higher expectations on social equity and satisfying community as a whole, the common good, whereas liberals prefer individual rights and freedoms. Northern European states are examples of social democracy with some mix of liberalism.


The word liberal nowadays can mean anything from someone who favours both economic and social liberties (with moderation on the former) as well as be used as a pejorative insult against "progressives".

So am I wrong? And what is a liberal?

More important - Does a liberal need to left-wing?