BackCountrySnow said:
What?
Isn't liberal just left wing. But not extreme left wing like socialism or communism.
I think a lot of people get confused because the liberal party isn't liberal.
Ha no...
Not at all...
That would be classified as an "incorrect" use of the word given its origins. The first time the word liberal was attached to a political position was actually a group of free market advocates in spain a few hundred years ago (and there my knowlegde goes no further). Based on the idea of 'liberal' markets (or free markets).
Classical Liberalism is a political ideology that is true to the words roots, so a classical liberal or a libertarian tends to believe in free markets, but in the case of its advocates like Hayek and Friedman these people also tend to believe in social freedom as well (i.e. they arent typically conservative, so I suppose you could call them socially progressive if you are to draw a long bow).
In this sense the liberal party isn't liberal as they are conservative, but they are economically liberal which is why they were christened the liberal party. Somewhere along the line, a group of americans decided that they would attach the word liberal to people who hold socially progressive views (I am not sure whether this originated as an insult or they called themselves this). It was along this tangent that the word started to be misused because often these so called liberals were far from liberal when it came to economic policies. They were usually socialists and believed in government intervention.
This is why in modern politics almost anyone can put their hands up and say they are a liberal; however in different contexts it will inevitably have different meanings (e.g. americans tend to think of liberals as only the socialist flavour). In Australia and the UK however this tends to be blurred and I think the latest thing is that you use terms such as 'libertarian' and 'classical liberal' to describe those inspired by hayek and friedman.
